:: 1 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES, NELLORETuesday, the 03rd day of January 2012

Present: -Sri M. Venkata Ramana, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,Nellore

C.C. No.17 of 2006(Crime No.11/RCT-TCT/2003 of A.C.B., Tirupati Range, Tirupati)

01. Name of the Complainant:

State: Inspector of Police-II, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Tirupati Range, Tirupati

02. Names of the Accused: A.1: Sri V. Sree Rama Sanjeeva Rao,Son of Sri Badrinath, aged 50 years,Former Junior Civil Judge/Judl. Magistrate ofI Class, Palamaner, Chittoor District

A.2: Sri Peddinti Krishnaswamy Vijayan,Son of Sri Krishnaswamy, aged 55 years,Former Police Constable, attached to Palamaner Police Station, Chittoor District

03. Offence & Sections of Law:

Charge No.1: U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act 1988 against both the accused;

Charge No.2: u/Sec.12 of P.C. Act, 1988 against A.2;

Charge No.3: u/Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 against both the accused; and

Charge No.4: u/Sec.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code against both the accused

04. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

05. Findings & Result:

A.1 is found, guilty of a charge under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, and is further found guilty of a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, under Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

A.2 is found guilty of a Charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, that he is further found guilty of a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, and that he is further found guilty of a charge under Section 12 of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 15 (fifteen) days, under Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

Both the accused are entitled for set off for remand period, if any, to the extent applicable, under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. MO.7-cash of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) is directed to be confiscated to State on expiry of appeal time. MO.1 to MO.6 and MO.8 are useless items, and they are directed to be destroyed on expiry of appeal time.

:: 2 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

06. Prosecution conducted by: Sri G. Ramesh Babu, Spl. Public Prosecutor;

07. Defence conducted by: A.1 has appeared in person; and

Sri K.V. Suresh,Sri Sk. Mahaboob Basha, andSri K. Madan Mohan, advocates for A.2.

08. Date of Hearing: 30.12.2011

J U D G M E N T

A.1-Sri V. Sree Rama Sanjeeva Rao was selected to A.P. Judiciary as Junior

Civil Judge. He was an Officer of 1998 batch. He was posted as Junior Civil

Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, Chittoor District, where he worked

from 06.01.2001 to 25.07.2003.

A.2-Sri P. Krishnaswamy Vijayan was a Police Constable, 1994 batch of

Palamaner Police Station, Chittoor District, where he worked from 15.9.1997 to

24.7.2003. By virtue of the posts held by both of them, they are public servants,

within the meaning of Sec.2 (c) of P.C. Act, 1988.

2. The case of the prosecution against the accused is, as follows: -

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is a practicing advocate, from the Bar at Palamaner. He

is a resident of Gantavuru village of Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District.

C.C. No.460/2000 was a case, filed by Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Palamaner

against four accused, for offences under Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P. Proh. Act, 1995 r/w

Sec.34(a)(1)(ii) r/w Sec.11(2) and 12 of A.P. Excise Act. Smt. Mahalakshmi and Sri R.

Jayavelu were A.3 and A.4 in the above case. On their behalf, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

filed Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 therein under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for discharge, on

01.04.2003. This matter was posted for counter and disposal by A.1 as learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, to 15.4.2003. On that day, a memo of

objections was filed by learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, Palamaner, in this petition.

Then, this matter was posted for enquiry to 09.06.2003.

:: 3 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

On 09.06.2003, A.1 called PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju into his chambers in the Court

of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil Judge at Palamaner at 2.30 p.m.,

and demanded him a bribe of Rs.5,000/- to pass favourable orders in Crl.M.P.

No.894/2003. In the mean time, Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 and C.C. No.460/2000 were

posted to 21.7.2003 for hearing, by A.1, as Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil

Judge, Palamaner.

On 15.7.2003 at about 7.00 p.m., PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju went to Punjabi Dhaba

on the outskirts of Palamaner town on Chittoor – Bangalore road. He saw A.1 in that

Dhaba and when he offered salutations, A.1 reminded him and asked him to pay

Rs.5,000/- as early as possible to A.2, who was then a Police Constable, attached on

Court duty for Palamaner Police Station. Since PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had no other

go, he agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- as illegal

gratification to A.1.

However, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was not willing to pay this amount either to

A.1 or A.2. Therefore, since the matter pertained to Judiciary, he approached the

Joint Director, Rayalaseema Zone, A.C.B., Hyderabad, on 17.7.2003 and presented a

written report against A.1. The same was endorsed to Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, who

received it at 09.00 p.m., on 18.07.2003 through a special messenger. After

causing discrete enquiries, PW.13-the then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, registered this

case against A.1 and A.2 at 9.00 p.m., on 18.7.2003 and issued FIR. He also took up

investigation.

In the course of investigation, PW.13-Sri S. Seshagiri Rao, then Dy.S.P., ACB,

Tirupati, organized and laid a trap against both the accused. Pursuant to it, pre-trap

proceedings was conducted on 19.7.2003 between 7.00 a.m., and 8.00 a.m., in his

office at Tirupati in the presence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri G.

Prabhakar Rao – both the mediators. In the course of trap, at about 12.10 p.m., A.2

was caught red-handed by the team of ACB Officers, lead by PW.13-then Dy.S.P.,

:: 4 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

ACB, Tirupati, when he had received and accepted the gratification amount of

Rs.5,000/- from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju on behalf of A.1. He turned positive to Sodium

Carbonate solution colour test in such proceedings, and the seized currency notes

from him also tallied in respect of their serial numbers, when compared with the

one, noted in pre-trap proceedings, soon after recovery of the same from him.

Immediately, A.2 was arrested in the premises of the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner. In the course of the same

proceedings, with the permission, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, approached

A.1 in his chambers, when he was learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil

Judge, Palamaner, appraised him of the situation including recovery of tainted

currency from A.2. A.1 denied the same. However, copies of mediator report were

served on A.2 as well as A.1 in the same proceedings, under their

acknowledgments.

A.1 obtained anticipatory bail from this Court in connection with this case, in

Crl.M.P. No.83/2004 as per orders, dated 20.02.2004.

Governor of Andhra Pradesh, being competent authority to remove A.1 from

service, accorded sanction to prosecute him on the recommendations of Hon’ble

The High Court of A.P. Sanction was also accorded to prosecute A.2 by State

Government in connection with this case.

Thus, the prosecution has set out that A.1, for official favour, to pass

favourable orders in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, demanded Rs.5,000/- from PW.1-Sri Y.

Naga Raju, and on his behalf, A.2 had received it, which is a gratification, other than

legal remuneration and by resorting to such corrupt practice and as pecuniary

benefit. Thus, A.2 abetted commission of offence by A.1.

Therefore, according to the prosecution, A.1 is liable to be punished for

offences under Sec.7 and under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, and A.2 is

:: 5 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

punishable for an offence under Sec.7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) as well as Sec.12 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thus, it has set out it’s case against both the

accused.

3. The case was taken on file for offences under Section 7, Sec.12, Sec.13 (2)

r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code,

and process was directed to be issued against both the accused.

4. Upon appearance of the accused in this Court pursuant to service of

summons, both of them were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., with reference to the

allegations of the prosecution against both of them. Both of them denied these

allegations.

5. Upon consideration of the material, on hearing the prosecution, as well as the

accused, a charge under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.1 and

A.2, a charge under Sec.12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.2, a

charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a

charge u/Sec.13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code

against A.1 and A.2 were framed, read over and explained in Telugu. The plea of

the accused is one of denial, and not guilty.

6. The charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, read with Sec.34 I.P.C.,

is unnecessarily framed in this case. The case of the prosecution against A.2 is that

of abetment of A.1 in receiving illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration to

show a favour to PW.1-Sri Y. Naga Raju. When required charges have already been

on record, framing another charge, relating to these substantive offences under P.C.

Act, along with Sec.34 I.P.C., is uncalled for. Added to it, when P.C. Act is a self

contained core in respect of substantive offences, bringing in the culpability of both

the accused, meeting the situation required in this case, a charge relating to Sec.34

I.P.C. could not have been framed. Therefore, no finding, as such on this charge, is

necessary, to be recorded in this case.

:: 6 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

7. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to

PW.14, and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28, as well as MO.1 to MO.8.

8. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is the defacto complainant in this case. He deposed in

respect of filing Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, while A.1 was working in such capacity. He

further deposed in relation to the demands, made by A.1 for illegal gratification of

Rs.5,000/- on 09.06.2003 and on 15.07.2003, directing him to pay this amount to

A.2, to be delivered to him, and in respect of pre-trap and trap proceedings in this

case. He also deposed in respect of receipt of MO.7-tainted currency by A.2 at

about 12.10 p.m., in the premises of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Palamaner, on behalf of A.1, and thus, completely supported the case of the

prosecution.

PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, and PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao are the

mediators, who were present in the course of pre-trap and trap proceedings. While

PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana resiled from the prosecution version in respect of he,

being a shadow witness, who accompanied PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju up to the chambers

of A.1, and receipt of MO.7-tainted currency by A.2, in front of the main building of

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, in other respects, he

supported the case of the prosecution. However, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao

completely supported the case of the prosecution in respect of pre-trap and trap

proceedings, corroborating the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11-mediator reports,

prepared in this connection. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana also admitted that these

two mediators reports were prepared in connection with these two transactions,

though he resiled from a part of the prosecution story.

PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem was then Head Clerk, PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu was

then Typist-cum-Accountant, PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy was then Personal

Assistant to learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner,

:: 7 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana was then Junior Assistant and Criminal Bench Clerk,

PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna and PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi being attenders/Process Servers

in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner.

PW.4 and PW.5 deposed in respect of a part of transaction relating to trap

proceedings of A.2, while PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy stated that A.1 was conducting

Lok-Adalat sitting on 19.07.2003, and whereas, PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana also

corroborated the version of PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy in this respect. PW.7-Sri G.

Lakshmi Narayana also identified Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.28 being the record, relating to

Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 and C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate

of I Class, Palamaner, and stating that they were seized by the then learned

Principal District Judge, Chittoor, in connection with this case against A.1.

The prosecution had chosen to treat PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, and PW.5-Sri M.

Ranachandrudu, hostile, and with the permission of the Court, they were subjected

to cross-examination by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor. They partly resiled from the

prosecution version in this respect, and whereas, PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy and

PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana supported the version of the prosecution. PW.8-Sri K.

Bala Krishna deposed in respect of presence of A.1 on 19.07.2003 in the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, and conduct of

Lok-Adalat proceedings on that day, when he was on Court hall duty, supporting the

version of the prosecution. Whereas PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi turned hostile to the

prosecution and supported more the version of the defence, speaking in respect of

presence of A.1 and A.2 on 19.7.2003, while setting out as to what went on in the

chambers of A.1 on that day, apart from Lok-Adalat proceedings, conducted in the

Court hall.

PW.10-Sri Mopuri Audi Narayana was then Sub-Inspector of Police, Palamaner

Police Station and he deposed in respect of A.2, being deputed to attend Court duty

from their Police Station, and retention of A.2 in Palamaner Police Station, in spite of

:: 8 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

being transferred, at the request of A.1. Thus, he supported the version of the

prosecution.

PW.11-Sri K. Rama Krishna and PW.12-Sri G. Devendra Rao are the Section

Officers, examined by the prosecution, to prove sanction orders issued against A.1

and A.2, under Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19 respectively and both of them supported the

version of the prosecution in this respect.

PW.13-Sri S. Seshagiri Rao and PW.14-Sri K. Karunakar are the Investigating

Officers in this case. Both of them deposed in respect of investigative aspects.

9. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused were

examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating material, appearing

against them. They had chosen to examine witnesses on their behalf, and filed

separate written statements in support of their defence.

10. A.1 filed a statement, denying the case of the prosecution, as follows:

He was appointed as Junior Civil Judge on 16.5.1998 and was transferred to

the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, on 06.01.2001. He had known

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and A.2-Sri Vijayan. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was practicing

advocate at Palamaner, and even before he joined at Palamaner, PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju was expelled from Bar Association, Palamaner, for his unbecoming

conduct. He was involved in several criminal cases and during the period when A.1

was working at Palamaner, Police registered several cases against PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju. A rowdy-sheet was also opened against him, and being maintained

against him. He also presented several false complaints against A.1 to his superiors

and that he is rude and unruly in his behaviour. He has a motive to implicate A.1 in

this false case.

A.1 denied that there was any demand by him on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, nor

there was any pending official favour towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Pendency of

discharge petition is only part of his duty, and it can never be an official favour,

:: 9 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

which he could have extended to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, nor he could have passed

any favourable order in that discharge petition. On 19.7.2003, when A.1 came to his

chambers at 10.30 a.m., PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, who was the attender on guard duty

at Chambers, informed that DW.4-Smt. Seetha Lakshmi, Sri Kameswara Rao, then

Manager, State Bank of India, Palamaner, Mr. Shoukath Ali and Mr. Barkath,

advocates, had come to meet him, which he permitted and at about 11.00 a.m.,

PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi further informed that an advocate wanted to represent to him.

Thereupon, A.1 had allowed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, who represented that he would

not be attending the Court on 21.7.2003, since his father-in-law fell ill, while

requesting not to dismiss his cases on that day. On which, A.1 informed him, that

there was no necessity to enter his chambers for this purpose, which he could have

represent when he was sitting in Lok-Adalat. Thereupon, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju went

away. A.2 was never in his Chambers on that day, nor come to his Chambers on

that day. He had never directed A.2, to receive any amount from PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju. At 11.45 a.m., he commenced Lok-Adalat on that day and at about 3.30

p.m., while he was in his chambers, ACB Officers came to him. When enquired, he

informed them as to what happened prior to their arrival. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju got

him implicated in this case, since he had admonished PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in open

Court for his rude behaviour and since he apprehended that A.1 would convict him

in pending cases against him, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju apprehended that Police would

open a rowdy sheet against him, and requested A.1 to interfere asking the Police not

to open rowdy-sheet against him. Thus, A.1 had set out his defence in his written

statement, filed as a part of examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

11. A.2 filed a separate written statement as a part of his examination under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., denying the case, set up against him. He admitted that he was

attached to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, while he

was working in Palamaner Police Station. He further admitted that he had known

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, who was a practicing advocate at Palamaner, against whom

:: 10 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

several cases were registered and tried at the instance of Police Department. He

further stated, that several private complaints were filed by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

against those, who filed criminal cases against him.

On 19.7.2003, there was a Lok-Adalat, being held in the Court of learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, on which day, he got ready with some

cases for Lok-Adalat purpose, producing accused and witnesses. At about 10.30

a.m., the Criminal Bench Clerk came to the Public Court, whom he had approached,

and informed him about the cases of Palamaner Police Station, which were ready for

compromise in Lok-Adalat, and got the matters ready for the said purpose. A.2

further stated, that at about 11.45 a.m., A.1 came to the Lok-Adalat sitting and

according to A.2, he was in Court hall up to 12.10 p.m. He further stated, that when

A.1 was looking into Civil cases, he along with four other Court Constables went to a

tea-stall to have tea and in the meantime, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju came there, offered

tea to all of them. Thereupon, according to A.2, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju handed over

Rs.5,000/-, stating that he should pay fine amount in Lok Adalat sitting, upon

settlement of a case relating to Moula and Senthil Kumar, while further stating that

he was going to Bus stand to send his uncle by bus, while further informing that

after return from Bus stand, he would collect this amount. According to A.2, he

believed the words of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, received such amount and kept the

same in his Uniform pocket. Thereupon, when PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju left them and

he started going towards the Court hall, two persons came, caught hold of him, took

him to the Head Clerk’s room and whereas, some other persons also came to the

same room, informing that they were from ACB raid party. According to him, when

enquired, he informed them as to what happened prior to their arrival and handed

over the cash of Rs.5,000/-, to them.

Thus, A.2 denied that he had ever demanded or accepted any amount from

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju on behalf of A.1, nor there was any official favour pending with

him towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, nor A.1 had directed him to receive any amount

:: 11 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

from any one. According to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju implicated him in this case with

false allegations, since he entertained grudge against Police Department, since

several cases were registered against him, that were investigated and he was

charge-sheeted. Thus, setting out in his defence, A.2 requested to acquit him.

12. On behalf of A.1, DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy, DW.4-Smt. J. Seetha Lakshmi and

DW.5-Sri M. Mohan Reddy were examined and whereas, on behalf of A.2, DW.2-Sri J.

Sadasiva Reddy and DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu, were examined in support of their

defence.

13. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy is the President of Bar Association, Palamaner. A.1

examined him to prove that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju along with Sri Sk. Basha, was

expelled from Bar Association, which was questioned by him sending a legal notice

to then Bar President, which was suitably replied to. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy

deposed in respect of such facts, while stating that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju has been in

active practice at Palamaner, even to this day.

DW.4-Smt. J. Seethalakshmi is the wife of Sri Subrahmanyam, a Senior

Advocate at Palamaner. She has been a member of Lok-Adalat Bench at Palamaner

for the last 10 years. According to her, on the date of trap, she was present in the

chambers of A.1 in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Palamaner. She is examined by A.1 to prove that there was no demand by him for

bribe, nor directing PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to handover the same to A.2, and to prove

that A.2 was not present in his chambers. She deposed such facts.

DW.5-Sri M. Mohan Reddy is a Junior Assistant, working in Hon’ble High Court

of A.P., in the Vigilance branch. He produced Ex.D.6-file. A.1 examined him to prove

that the statements of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M.

Ramachandrudu are different, which are produced in this Court, from the one,

forwarded to Hon’ble High Court of A.P., while questioning the investigation of

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati.

:: 12 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy is the Head Constable, attached to Palamaner

Police Station, who produced Ex.X.1-file to show that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was

Rowdy No.10 by opening a Rowdy-sheet, in their Police Station.

DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu is one of the Constables, alleged to have had attended

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner on 19.7.2003, when a

Lok-Adalat was conducted. A.2 examined him to prove his defence that PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju handed over Rs.5,000/- to A.2 on the premise that it was the amount, to

be paid in Lok-Adalat sitting towards the fine payable by one Senthil Kumar and

another, on account of settlement of cases and it was never the bribe amount.

DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu deposed as to such facts.

14. On behalf of the prosecution, written submissions are filed. On behalf of both

the accused, written submissions are filed separately and whereas, on behalf of A.2,

oral submissions are also made. A.1 filed his written submissions in person.

15. Now, the points arise for determination are,

1. “Whether there was official favour pending with A.1 and A.2 towards

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju?”

2. “Whether the alleged demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/- on PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju by A.1 is true, and if the prosecution proved that A.2 had

received Rs.5,000/- as bribe from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju on behalf of A.1?”

3. “Whether the investigation in this case is appropriate and fair?”

4. “Whether sanction to prosecute A.1 and A.2 under Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19

are proved to be legal, proper and in order?”

5. “Whether a charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act and a charge under Sec.13 (2)

r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act against A.1 is made out?”

6. “Whether a charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, and

under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act are established against A.2

beyond reasonable doubt?”

:: 13 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

POINT No.1: -

“Whether there was official favour pending with A.1 and A.2 towards

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju?”

16. Palamaner is a small town in Chittoor District. There is a Court of learned

Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, at Palamaner. A.1 took charge as the

learned Junior Civil Judge/Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner on 06.01.2001.

17. C.C. No.460/2000 was pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Palamaner, when A.1 was the Presiding Officer of this Court. It had arisen out

of Crime No.144/97-98 of Excise Station, Palamaner. There are four accused in C.C.

No.460/2000. On behalf of A.3 and A.4 in C.C. No.460/2000, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, a

practicing advocate at Palamaner, filed Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 under Sec.239 Cr.P.C.,

as per Ex.P.27-petition, for discharge, on 01.04.2003. It was posted for counter and

objections of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, to 15.4.2003. Thereafter, C.C.

No.460/2000 and Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 were posted to 21.7.2003. Ex.P.26 is the

docket sheet in C.C. No.460/2000, reflecting posting of this case to different dates,

which is also reflected by Ex.P.27 the petition in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003.

18. When A.1 was learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, these matters

came up for consideration and enquiry before him. These facts are testified by

PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, Junior Assistant in the Court of learned Junior Civil

Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, who was looking after criminal bench

work in that Court. The original records of C.C. No.460/2000 were seized by learned

Principal District Judge, Chittoor, on account of the trap in this case, through his

Personal Assistant Sri Muralidhar, on 20.07.2003 from the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.28 were secured as per orders of

this Court on the memo filed by the prosecution in this case, from the Court of

learned Prl. District Judge, Chittoor, upon being summoned. It is not disputed by

A.1, that these matters came up for consideration before him as the learned

:: 14 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

Presiding Officer of the said Court. According to PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, A.1,

as learned Presiding Officer of the said Court, made the docket notings with his

initial thereon, when the case was pending, during his tenure. He stated that A.1

had also subscribed his initials on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.28.

19. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju also deposed in respect of it, stating that Crl.M.P.

No.894/2003 was posted to enquiry to 09.06.2003 and again to 21.7.2003.

According to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, it is on account of pendency of Crl.M.P.

No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000, a demand was made by A.1 for a gratification of

Rs.5,000/-, to pass favourable orders therein, on 09.06.203, on 15.7.2003, and again

on the date of trap, namely, 19.7.2003. The details of such demand shall be

discussed infra, while discussing Point No.2.

20. Nonetheless, the admitted situation in this case relating to pendency of this

matter, and A.1, being the Presiding Officer of the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, make out that he was in a position to extend a

favour to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, allowing Crl.M.P. No.894/2003, passing an order of

discharge of A.3 and A.4 in C.C. No.460/2000. It is the official favour, according to

the prosecution, pending with A.1 towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju.

21. However, it is contended by A.1, that it is not an official favour as such, which

in fact was a duty, cast upon him as the Presiding officer of the said Court.

Undisputedly, it was his duty to dispose of Crl.M.P. No.894/2003, upon hearing the

petitioners as well as the respondent therein, passing a judicial order. It is the

premise, of which according to the prosecution, A.1 intended to make benefit for

himself. Thus, a duty cast upon him was taken as an opportunity by A.1, as if he

was extending a favour to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, who was the advocate for the

petitioners. Therefore, the premise, on which the prosecution has built up it’s case

as to the pending official favour with A.1 towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, is well made

out, basing on admitted facts. May be that the petitioners in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003

:: 15 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

in C.C. No.460/2000 were the real beneficiaries, if an order of discharge is passed in

their favour. Nonetheless, this application was filed by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, as their

advocate, and he too stands to gain on account of passing of such order in favour of

his clients. Therefore, the official favour, sought to be projected by the prosecution

in this case, is very much made out and it cannot be taken as a duty simplicitor, to

be discharged by A.1, in the facts and circumstances.

22. It is contended for A.2, that absolutely there was no obligation cast on him,

towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in this respect, and therefore, no official favour as

such, is proved and established by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is

that, A.1 had taken services of A.2 to collect, receive and deliver the gratification for

such purpose, when A.1 was intending to pass favourable orders in the petition filed

by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Therefore, the liability of A.2 in this respect, is made out

vicariously, on account of A.1.

23. On behalf of A.1, it is contended that if pendency of the petition or a case is

treated as an official favour, then for each and every case pending before the

Presiding Judge, there can be an official favour, pending towards the accused in that

case. Thus, it is contended by A.1, that taking advantage of pendency of such

petition, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had attributed an official favour in implicating him, out

of malice and ill-motive. Reasons are assigned supra, rejecting such contention of

A.1 and situation was made use of converting the official duty into an official favour,

as set out by the prosecution.

24. The accused relied on the case of “Babu Lal Bajpai, Appellant v. State of

U.P.”, [1994 CRI.L.J. 1383 (SC)] in this respect. Their Lordships of Supreme Court,

in this authority, observed in para 5 in relation to facts, as under:

“... we have gone through the judgment of both the courts below, as

well as the evidence on record and have come to the conclusion that there

was no tangible reason for the High Court to interfere with the finding of

:: 16 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the first instance, the trial Court has

recorded a finding that at the relevant time, there was no motive for

demanding and accepting the bribe because no bill was pending before him

for pre-audit.”

25. “Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Rajasthan”, [1998 CRI.L.J. 3155 (Rajasthan High

Court)] is also relied on by the accused in this respect, where, in given facts and

circumstances, it was observed in Para 21, as under:

“... From the prosecution witnesses it is proved that there was no work of

Radhey Shyam pending with the accused appellant therefore he could not

have given any money as bribery. Secondly, the case of the prosecution is

contradictory to its story. First the prosecution tried to say that the accused

appellant demanded money on 16-3-78 in order to sanction subsidy to be

granted to deepen the well but the demand was not proved. Then it is said

that amount was demanded by Shri Vaishnav but there was no work pending

with Shri Vaishnav or in the office of Project Officer. Then the prosecution

came with the version that the amount was given to the accused appellant to

pass over to the Assistant Engineer but there was no work pending with the

Assistant Engineer as well. There was no demand by the Assistant Engineer

even. The third story of the prosecution is that the money was given to the

accused appellant to accelerate the work but when no work was pending,

question of acceleration did not arise.”

26. “State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao”, [2004 CRI.L.J. 1412

(SC)], is also relied on for the accused, wherein their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in given facts and circumstances of the case, observed in para 6 as under:

“We think the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the

contract for which PW-1 had offered his bid was only under consideration and

was not finally accepted therefore, the question of the respondent agreeing

to give the work order on payment of bribe did not arise..”

27. “C. Sivakumar Reddy, Vs. State of A.P.”, [2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 863 (A.P.

High Court)] is also relied on for the accused, wherein, it was observed on facts, in

Para 13, as under:

:: 17 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

“... It is not the case of any of the officers that the accused officer is

entitled to do any official favour. Merely because, the M.R.O., stated that any

application filed for grant of patta, remarks will be called from the Village

Officer, it cannot be said that the Village Administrative Officer is entitled to

do any official favour or dis-favour”.

28. All these authorities, referred to particular fact situation and such

observations were made holding that there was no pending official favour as such,

or that the accused was not in a position to extend such so-called favour to the

complainant. However, in the present case, it was open for A.1, to extend such

favour by allowing Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000. Therefore, on facts,

all the cited authorities for the accused, cannot be made applicable to this case.

Hence, rejecting the contention of the accused, it has to be held that, pending

official favour with A.1 towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is established by the

prosecution. A.2 should also take the liability along with A.1 vicariously in this

respect.

29. Thus, this point is answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused.

POINT No.2: -

“Whether the alleged demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/- on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

by A.1 is true, and if the prosecution proved that A.2 had received Rs.5,000/-

as bribe from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju on behalf of A.1?”

30. The prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to prove

the fact of prior demands on 09.06.2003 and on 15.7.2003. In respect of demand

on 19.7.2003 i.e., on the date of trap, it is relying on the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana in part, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, and

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, apart from the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11-

mediator reports as well as the circumstances, relating to and surrounding recovery

of MO.7-cash from A.2 in the course of trap proceedings.

:: 18 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

31. Both the accused have denied all such circumstances, sought to be projected

by the prosecution. Whereas, A.1 has denied specifically the prior demands, on

09.06.2003 and 15.7.2003, alleged to have been made by him on PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju for payment of bribe of Rs.5,000/-.

32. According to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, on 09.06.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., A.1

called him into his chambers and demanded Rs.5,000/- to pass favourable orders in

Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000. According to him, on 15.7.2003, at about

7.00 p.m., he went to a Daba Hotel at the outskirts of Palamaner town at Palamaner

– Chittoor road. By the time he went there, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, A.1

was found in that Daba, and as soon as PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju saw him, he offered

salutation to A.1. Then, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, A.1 reminded him that

he would pass favourable orders in the afore-said petition, if he happened to give

him Rs.5,000/- as early as possible, either to him directly or to A.2.

33. Such version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is consistently set out by him in Ex.P.1,

which is the complaint, preferred by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to Joint Director, Anti-

Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, on 17.07.2003. In Ex.P.1, in respect of demand on

15.7.2003, the version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is that, A.1 had reiterated his earlier

demand for Rs.5,000/-, asking him to pay as early as possible to A.2 who was

working as Court Constable, attached to Palamaner Police Station.

34. According to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he was not willing to pay bribe to A.1, and

since the matter pertained to judiciary, he preferred Ex.P.1 to Joint Director

(Rayalaseema), A.C.B., Hyderabad, under Ex.P.1, on 17.7.2003, who directed him, to

meet Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, thereon. Therefore, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju,

on 18.7.2003, in between 9.00 p.m., and 9.30 p.m., he met PW.13-then Dy.S.P.,

ACB, Tirupati, in his office at Tirupati, who directed him to come to his office next

morning i.e., on 19.7.2003 at 6.00 a.m., along with the intended bribe amount of

Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, on 19.7.2003 at 6.00 a.m., as per PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he

:: 19 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

went to the Office of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, at Tirupati, with the intended bribe

amount.

35. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati also deposed in this respect, that on

18.7.2003 at about 9.00 p.m., he received a sealed cover through a special

messenger from the office of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad. Upon opening this cover,

according to PW.13-then Dy.S.P., he noticed Ex.P.20-Memo of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad,

dated 17.7.2003 with instructions to register a case against A.1 and A.2, and to

proceed with the trap. This cover also contained Ex.P.21-the letter of the then

Registrar (Vigilance), Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, addressed to D.G.,

ACB, dated 17.7.2003, informing that pursuant to letter of D.G., ACB, dated

17.7.2003, Hon’ble the Chief Justice of A.P., was pleased to grant necessary

permission to lay trap against A.1. On the strength of it, according to PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., after conducting necessary discrete enquiries about bonafides of PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju and the reputation of A.1 and A.2, he registered Ex.P.22-FIR on 19.7.2003

at 6.00 a.m., on the strength of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21.

36. According to PW.13-then Dy.S.P., he found the information in Ex.P.1 being

genuine and that there was no ill-feeling for PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju against A.1 and

A.2. He also found that the reputation of A.1 was bad and corrupt.

37. Before registering FIR, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, was under an

obligation to cause preliminary enquiry in relation to antecedents like reputation of

the accused, if the complainant had any ill-will or motive to prefer such complaint

against the accused and to verify the information contained in the complaint. It is

mandated in the case of “P. Sirajuddin, etc., vs. State of Madras, etc”, [1971

CRI.L.J. 523 (SC)], by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The pertinent observations in this

respect of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para 17, are as under:

“Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts

of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the

type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there

:: 20 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a

responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially

one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if

baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but

to the department he belonged to, in general.”

38. This authority was followed and applied in the case of “P. Chandra Sekhar

Reddy, Vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor, ACB, High Court of

A.P., Hyderabad” [2009 (3) ALT (Crl.) 210 (A.P.)], holding that, conducting such

preliminary enquiry is not an empty formality.

39. As seen from Ex.P.1 or Ex.P.22, there is no endorsement as such as to

outcome of the preliminary enquiry, said to have had been caused by PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati in this case. The same is admitted by PW.13-then Dy.S.P.,

ACB, Tirupati, in cross-examination for A.2. But, he stated that since they were

discrete enquiries, they need not be disclosed anywhere, and hence, he did not

endorse to that effect on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.22. He further stated, that during his

entire service in ACB, he had never made any endorsement in respect of

antecedents against public servants on the complaints as well as FIR. He also

stated, that he informed D.G., ACB, about it, and a copy of such communication

according to him, was available in the case diary file. Later on, he resiled from this

statement, stating that he did not find a copy of his report, submitted to D.G., ACB,

in respect of preliminary enquiry in the C.D. File, brought by him to this Court on the

day he deposed, namely, on 01.08.2011, relating to antecedents. When suggested

to him, on behalf of A.2 that he had never submitted such report to D.G., ACB, he

denied.

40. In cross-examination, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, stated that he

caused discrete enquiries from his Tirupati Office, through his informant during night

in between 18.7.2003 and 19.7.2003 in respect of antecedents of A.1, A.2, and

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Using informants for this purpose, is seriously assailed on

:: 21 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

behalf of A.2, stating that there was never such practice and purposely, PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., came out with a false statement in this respect. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., further

stated, that he did not send a written message to D.G., ACB, before pre-trap

proceedings, or before trap proceedings, in respect of his enquiry relating to

antecedents of A.1, A.2, and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. But, he added that he informed

Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Hyderabad, on phone, in this respect, before

registering FIR. He did not enter this fact in Case Diary file. He denied the

suggestion for A.2, that he did not so inform J.D. (R), ACB, Hyderabad, nor inform in

writing to D.G., ACB, after trap about the antecedents or in relation to preliminary

enquiry and he denied.

41. Thus, basing on these statements, elicited from PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB,

Tirupati, it is strenuously contended for the accused, that there was no preliminary

enquiry at all by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, before registering Ex.P.22-FIR,

and the material, so placed by the prosecution itself is making out that such version

of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., is false, to his knowledge. Thus, it is stated, that a

mandatory requirement has been flouted by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., and therefore, the

entire investigation is vitiated.

42. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, as the Investigating Officer, gave reasons,

in his evidence, why he did not choose to endorse on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.22 in respect

of the outcome of preliminary enquiry. His evidence is positive, that he did conduct

such enquiry. Necessarily, such enquiry should be through his own sources, being

discrete in nature. Had he made an endorsement on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.22, it would

have definitely added to acceptability of his version at the trial. Nonetheless, he

came out clearly in his evidence, that he did make such discrete enquiries, and upon

his satisfaction in relation to the reputation of the accused, being corrupt, finding

the contents of Ex.P.1 being genuine, and upon observing that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

had no ill-will or motive to wreak vengeance against both the accused, registered

Ex.P.22-FIR on Ex.P.1.

:: 22 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

43. It should also be noted, that the accused are none other than a serving

Judicial Officer, and a Police Constable, at Palamaner. Making such enquiries during

the night in between 18.7.2003 after receiving a sealed cover from the Office of

D.G., ACB, at 9.00 p.m., and before registering FIR at 6.00 a.m., on 19.7.2003, in

respect of these officers, located at Palamaner, cannot be found fault with. He could

gather information, according to his evidence, within that time and possibly, so

since one of them being a Police Constable, he could have received information and

another, being a Judicial Officer, it would not have been a difficult affair for him, to

gather about his reputation at Palamaner, which is a small town. Therefore, the

evidence of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, in this respect, can be relied on,

holding that he did cause enquiries relating to antecedents of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju,

A.1 and A.2, as well as the contents of Ex.P.1.

44. It is contended by A.1, that there is only the version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

against him in relation to prior demands, on 09.6.2003 and 15.7.2003. It is further

contended by him, that he is a highly interested witness, who had a strong motive

and desire, to wreak vengeance against him. A.1 relied on the background of PW.1-

Sri Y. Nagaraju in this respect, contending that he was expelled from Bar

Association, Palamaner, who had faced a number of criminal cases and who was

also convicted in one of the cases against whom a rowdy sheet was opened in

Palamaner Police Station. Thus, A.1 contended, that the sole testimony of PW.1-Sri

Y. Nagaraju in this respect, has to be rejected from consideration, while advancing

that as Presiding Officer in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrte

of I Class, Palamaner, he had occasions to check the behaviour of the accused, who

was given to rude and unruly conduct.

45. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was specifically cross-examined in this respect, by A.1.

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated, that Sri Sivarama Krishna was the predecessor of A.1 at

Palamaner. He denied the suggestion of A.1, that when Sri Sivarama Krishna was

:: 23 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

learned Junior Civil Judge at Palamaner, he was expelled from Bar Association,

Palamaner, in respect of which, he caused a lawyer’s notice, dated 05.4.2000 from

the Office of Sri B.S. Kumar, Advocate, Palamaner, to Sri V.K. Ramesh Babu,

advocate, Palamaner (then President, Bar Association, Palamaner), Sri Uppalapati

Lakshmana Murthy, Resident Editor, Vaartha Daily Newspaper, Renugunta, Tirupati

and to Sri L. Bhaskar, advocate, Palamaner.cum-daily newspaper reporter of Vaartha

paper of Gangavaram Mandal. He also denied the suggestion of A.1, that a reply to

lawyer’s notice was issued by then President, Bar Association, Palamaner,

dt.21.4.2000, from the Office of Sri Markonda Reddy, advocate, Palamaner, to Sri

B.S. Kumar, advocate, Palamaner. He also denied suggestion, he was expelled from

Palamaner Bar Association on the allegation that he was given to rough behaviour

and assaulting public servants and others. However, A.1 had chosen to examine

DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy in this respect, to substantiate his version.

46. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy is the President, Bar Association, Palamaner. He

has been practicing at Palamaner, since 25 years. He knows both A.1 and A.2 as

well as PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. He stated that Sri Sivarama Krishna was predecessor

of A.1 as learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Palamaner. He

further stated, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and Sri Sk. Basha have been practising

advocates from Palamaner Bar, and even to this day. He further stated, that PW.1-

Sri Y. Nagaraju and Sri Sk. Basha had complained against Sri Sivarama Krishna, to

the then President, Bar Association, Palamaner, requesting to boycott the Court and

from attending the Court. Thereupon, according to DW.1-Sri Mohan Reddy, their Bar

Association had decided by a resolution, to boycott and abstain from attending the

Court in or about the year 2000 or 2001, when Sri Sivarama Krishna was learned

Presiding Officer of the Court at Palamaner. It went on for about a day or two,

according to DW.1-Sri Mohan Reddy, which was later withdrawn on the advice of

learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, when a representation was presented by

Bar Association, Palamaner, in this respect.

:: 24 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

47. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy further stated, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and Sri Sk.

Basha, were expelled from the Bar Association in or about the year 2000 or 2001

during the tenure of Sri Sivarama Krishna, since they insisted that abstaining from

attending the Courts should be continued without heeding the advice of learned

Principal District Judge, Chittoor, that was not relished by the Bar Association.

According to DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy, as stated by him in cross-examination by

learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and Sri Sk. Basha were

aggrieved on account of behaviour of Sri Sivarama Krishna, who was given to

shouting in open Court, and hence, they gave a requisition to boycott the Court, to

their Bar Association. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy further stated in cross-examination

by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, that there was no other reason for their expulsion

from the Bar, and nonetheless, both of them have been actively practicing in the

Court at Palamaner even to this day.

48. Thus, the evidence of DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy makes out, that PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju is continuing to practice at Palamaner as an advocate, and is in active

practice. The evidence of DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy, Head Constable of

Palamaner Police Station also makes out, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is a Municipal

Councilor and he will be participating in agitations as a politician. Expulsion of

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju did not come in his way in practicing in the Court at Palamaner.

Therefore, it cannot be taken as a circumstance by itself, to make out nature and

conduct of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. DW.1-Sri B. Mohan Reddy, did not suggest or state

about the conduct and behaviour of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in open court or any

where, as an advocate, or as a politician.

49. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is subjected to cross-examination by A.1, in respect of

several criminal cases, which he faced as an advocate, or his family members, or

such cases, which he filed against others. There are 14 cases either initiated

:: 25 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

against him or filed by him in the Court at Palamner. The relevant portion of his

deposition is desirable to extract, and it is as follows:

“A case in Cr. No.207/1998 was registered in Palamaner P.S. against me and

my family members on 15.6.1998. Witness adds :This case was registered on

account of a Civil dispute with neighbouring land owners. We also filed a

complaint against the complainant in the above Case. Thus there were case

and Counter case which were ultimately compromised and we were all

acquitted in this case”. The counter case filed was based on a Private

complaint filed by me, since the Police did not file Charge sheet on my

complaint against the accused therein. It is not true that Cr. No.167/1996

was registered against me, relating to C.C. No.203/1996 on the file of learned

JMFC, Palamaner. But it was a case registered against my father and there

was also a counter case filed by my father, basing on a Private complaint

against the complainant therein. Both these cases also ended in compromise

and in acquittal. It is true that Cr. No.2000/2000, of Palamaner P.S., was

registered against me on the allegation that I assaulted Superintendent, Sub-

Jail, Palamaner, when he was discharging duties in the Court. Witness adds:

“The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Palamaner had beat me with a Chappal at my

face and I filed a Private complaint against him under Section 355 IPC in the

Court of learned JMFC, Palamaner. Thereafter, as a counter to it, he got Cr.

No.2000/2000, registered against me in Palamaner P.S. Both these cases

ended in compromise.

I was added as an accused in Cr. No.103/2001, of Palamaner P.S., on

14.7.2001 on a complaint given by Sri G. Narasimha Reddy, Asst. Engineer,

R&B, Palamaner for an offence Under Sec.332 IPC. Witness adds :I was

acquitted in this case after a full fledged Trial.” C.C.297/2003 was on the file

of learned JMFC, Palamaner, pending against me for offences under Section

452 IPC and under Section 323 IPC. Witness adds “I filed a case, on Private

complaint against the defacto complainant in C.C.297/2003 and both these

cases ended in an acquittal, after full fledged trial. It is true that Cr.

No.95/2003 was registered under Section 353 IPC in Palamaner P.S., on the

allegation that I assaulted a Excise Constable on 7.6.2003. Witness adds

“This case ended in acquittal, after full fledged trial”. I did not file any private

complaint against the defacto complainant in Cr. No.95/2003 of Palamaner

P.S. It is true that Sri Rajendra, husband of then advocate Smt. Sobha, was an

accused along with me in Cr. No.95/2003. I do not know if Sri Rajendra filed a

:: 26 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

Private complaint against the defacto complainant in Cr. No.95/2003 of

Palamaner P.S., on the file of learned JMFC, Palamaner. Cr. No.88/2004 of

Palamaner P.S., under Sec.341, 506 and 323 IPC, r/w Section 34 IPC, was

registered against me and a Charge sheet was filed in this case in C.C.

No.220/2004 on the file of learned JMFC, Palamaner. Witness adds “I also

filed a complaint, against the defacto complainant in the above case before

police in Palamaner P.S., and a charge sheet was also filed on the file of

learned JMFC, Palamaner. Both these cases ended in compromise and in

acquittal”.

A case in Cr. No.129/2005 in Palamaner P.S., U/s.324 IPC and U/s. 506

IPC was registered against me. Witness adds “It was referred as false after

due investigation”. On the complaint of one Sri K.S. Gopi, a case in Cr.

No.93/2007 of Palamaner P.S., was registered, U/s.353 IPC, against me.

Witness adds “This case also ended in an acquittal, on contest”. Cr.

No.192/2007 of Palamaner P.S., was registered on 24.12.2007 U/s.324 IPC on

the complaint of Sri Y.R. Hema Naidu against me. Witness adds “It was

relating to a civil dispute, relating to lands and a Private complaint was filed

by me against him, on the file of learned JMFC, Palamaner. Both these cases

ended in acquittal, since we compromised”. Sri Y.R. Hema Naidu is my elder

brother’s son.”

50. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was an accused in C.C. No.118/2010 on the file of

learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, filed for offences under Sec.353

IPC, Sec.309 IPC, and under Sec.506 IPC, relating to Crime No.266/2009 of

Palamaner Police Station. It is a case, later to trap incident in this case, relating to

abusing Smt. S. Nagamani, then Tahsildar at Palamaner under intoxication stage,

obstructing her from her legitimate duties, on 07.11.2009 at about 5.30 p.m., at

Tahsildar’s Office, Palamaner, as per the allegations of the prosecution in that case.

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was found guilty, in this case and he was convicted and

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for an offence under Sec.353 IPC, in default,

to suffer SI for three months, was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for

an offence under Sec.506 IPC, in default, to suffer SI for three months, and was

further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for an offence under Sec.309 IPC, in

default, to suffer SI for two months. Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of the judgment in

:: 27 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

C.C. No.118/2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner,

dated 03.06.2011. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated, that he preferred Criminal Appeal

No.131/2011 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, on 24.6.2011

against conviction, sentence, and this judgment, and it is now pending, according to

him. Therefore, the conviction, so recorded against him, is subjudice and PW.1-Sri

Y. Nagaraju was chosen to challenge it. It has not become final.

51. A rowdy sheet was opened against him assigning No.10 in Palamaner Police

Station. DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy, Head Constable, attached to Palamaner Police

Station, has deposed in respect of it. He also produced Ex.X.1-file relating to PW.1-

Sri Y. Nagaraju, describing him as rowdy No.10, and it was opened on 20.8.2003. A

photocopy of it, is Ex.D.5. Serious contentions are advanced in respect of opening

Ex.X.1-file against PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, pointing

out several procedural irregularities and lapses, while stating that purposely it was

brought out. The evidence of DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy itself makes out that,

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had challenged, declaring him as a rowdy sheeter, before

Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy stated, that

they received a Radio Message from the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, in

respect of a case filed by him on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., for removal of

his name, as a rowdy sheeter, of Palamaner P.S., while directing to present the

material to the State Public Prosecutor, to represent in that case. Therefore, from

the evidence of DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy, it is clear, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

had challenged such an order, declaring him as a rowdy sheeter, on the file of

Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Therefore, the same is also subjudice. Hence, either his

conviction, or declaring him as a rowdy sheeter, cannot be the circumstances, that

can be relied on by A.1, to castigate PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, as such.

52. A.1 suggested to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, that about 2 or 3 months prior to trap

in this case, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had requested him not to permit Police to have

access to FIRs, and other records, relating to him, available in Court Office, since

:: 28 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

Police were intending to open a rowdy sheet against PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and

thereupon, A.1 had informed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, that he would not interfere in this

matter. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju denied this suggestion. The same is also the

contention, by A.1, stating that it was one of the reasons for PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, to

foist this case against him. It is rather far fetched to believe that such request

would have been made by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, to A.1, who was then Presiding

Officer of the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palamaner. It is beyond imagination, as to how A.1 could have acted upon such

representation, preventing Police from gathering necessary material against PW.1-

Sri Y. Nagaraju, even if such version is taken, being true.

53. A.1 also pointed out that there was a case of highhanded behaviour against

one Mr. Vamsidhar Goud, then Sub-Inspector of Police at Palamaner Police Station,

by hitting against a wall, causing an injury to his fore-head. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

denied, when so suggested by A.1, to him. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju added, that Mr.

Vamsidhar Goud had come to their fields in their village, and had assaulted his

parents in his presence, and had beat him with a stick, when he questioned him in

respect of his highhanded behaviour. In respect of it, according to PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, he complained to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, and also filed a

private complaint against him on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palamaner. He further stated, that on account of interference by elders, and when

Mr. Vamsidhar Gowd tendered apology to his parents, he withdrew this case.

54. It is contended by A.1, that such background of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju should

necessarily be taken into consideration, and it should not be forgotten, while

appreciating his evidence. “Gulam Mohamood A. Malek, v. The State of Gujarat”,

[1980 CRI.L.J. 1096 (SC)], is relied on by A.1 in this respect. Their Lordships of

Supreme Court, in this authority, with reference to facts, observed as under:

:: 29 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

“Where the complainant in a prosecution for acceptance of bribe was an

accused in four cases and had stated without compunction that he used to

give money to the accused, a Bench clerk in court, on several occasions and

had launched complaint about demand of bribe after ten days after alleged

demand and, though the payment of bribe was made in Court hall the money

was recovered in another room after about twenty minutes and no

independent witness from the hall was examined, the accused could not be

convicted for accepting bribe on the corroborating testimony of the panch

witness as to recovery of money. In appreciating the evidence in such case

the background should not be forgotten.”

55. A.1 also relied on the case of “Laxman, Vs. State of Rajasthan” [2001

CRI.L.J. 1150 (Rajasthan)] in this respect. In Para 6 of this reported decision, the

observations are as under:

“It is improbable that negotiation for deciding the amount of bribe to be

accepted would give (sic) on for a month and half. This witness was

prosecuted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was in jail for

about 4 months, he admits this also in his cross-examination. He has also

admitted concealment of this prosecution and conviction of his from the

corporation. In such circumstances, his evidence cannot be accepted as

trustworthy.”

56. In the case of “Manohar Dhondu Sawant, Vs. State of Maharashtra &

Another”, [2006 CRI.L.J. (NOC) 144 (Bom.)] is relied on by A.1, and it was found

on facts, that the defacto complainant had reason to have grudge, against the

accused.

57. “Ganga Kumar Srivastava, Vs. State of Bihar” [2005 CRI.L.J. 3454 (SC)] is

also relied on by A.1, where, in factual context, their Lordships of Supreme Court, in

Para 24, observed, accepting the defence version, as under: -

“Even otherwise, the defence of the accused was more probable and,

therefore, it should be accepted. It was one of the defences of the appellant

that because of starting a criminal case against the complainant, the trap

case was initiated by the vigilance department at the instance of the

complainant. It is not in dispute that a complaint at the instance of the

:: 30 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

appellant was made against the complainant and another for alleged theft of

electricity and the complainant was found guilty which was, however, set

aside in appeal. In the background of this fact and other circumstances as

noted hereinearlier can it not be said that the defence case was more

probable than that of the prosecution case and that in the facts and

circumstances and evidence on record the defence case must be accepted.

The aforesaid dramatic case was initiated by the Vigilance department at the

instance of the complainant.”

58. The case of “Ganapathi Sanya Naik, Vs. State of Karnataka”, [2007 CRI.L.J.

4689 (SC)] is relied on by A.1 in the same context. In this authority, their Lordships

of Hon’ble Supreme Court, on facts, observed in Para 8, as under: -

“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the view

taken by the trial court was clearly possible on the evidence in the case. The

Court had observed that the plea of the defence at the very initial stage was

that PW-6 had serious animosity towards the appellant and that the currency

notes had been put on the table by the former was a plausible explanation.

It is in the evidence that the currency notes had not been touched by the

appellant or recovered from his person. It is also the prosecution case that

the relevant documents had been handed over to Nagaraja immediately

after the money had been put on the table. The argument therefore that

there was no occasion to make a demand for any bribe is also plausible.”

59. In the factual backdrop, such observations were made in all these authorities,

referring to animosity between the accused and the defacto complainant. Such are

not the circumstances in this case, whatever criminal cases either instituted against

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju or instituted by him, or his family members, were on account of

his private affairs. They had nothing to do with the discharge of duties by A.1, as

the Presiding Officer of the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Palamaner. It can neither be stated that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had grouse

against Police Department, and which is reflected, on account of implicating A.2 in

this case. In fact, it is demonstrating nature of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, that he was a

person, who was taking upon himself to face the challenge whatever he came

across and was resisting them, resorting to due process of law. Therefore, on such

:: 31 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

premise, as sought to be contended by A.1, his evidence cannot be discarded, as

such.

60. Background of the case should necessarily be taken into consideration, in

appreciating the evidence, on record. At the same time, such nature of PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, when found to be in active public life, cannot altogether make his

evidence in this case unworthy of credence.

61. Observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in “State of A.P., Vs. C. Uma

Maheswara Rao and another” [2004 CRI.L.J. 2040 (SC)], are apt to consider and

should be borne in mind, while appreciating the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. In

Para 26, in this context, their Lordships observed in this authority, as under:

“The evidence of PW-1 cannot be ignored on the ground that he had earlier

made grievances against some other officials. The trial Court had carefully

analysed his evidence and found the same to be credible. Even if PW-2 did

not support the prosecution version on some aspects yet his evidence also

prove giving of money. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with those of Pws-3

and 5 is sufficient to bring home the accusations.” (Emphasis supplied)

62. The case of the prosecution that the foremost demand was on 09.6.2003 in

the chambers of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner,

by A.1, on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. On that day, Crl.M.P.894/2003 in C.C.460/2000,

came up for hearing. It cannot be expected, that anyone would have been in the

chambers of A.1, when such demand is made, on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. The version

of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.1 alone will be available for determination in such

circumstances. Considering the consistent version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju at the

trial, as well as in Ex.P.1, it cannot be brushed aside, as such.

63. The demand on 15.7.2003 was in a Punjabi Dhaba at Palamaner – Bangalore

road, on the outskirts of Palamaner town, said to have been made at 7.00 p.m.

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had come across A.1 in that Dhaba, who reminded him of his

demand for Rs.5,000/- to get an early order in the above petition in his favour. May

:: 32 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

be that, Ex.P.1 is setting out that A.1 had directed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to pay the

demanded amount of Rs.5,000/- to A.2, and whereas, at the trial, it is the version of

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju that A.1 had asked him to pay either to him directly, or to A.2,

for this purpose. In cross-examination by A.1, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated that

Ex.P.1 did not reflect that A.1 asked him to pay such amount directly. It is a minor

aberration in the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, which is not going to the root of

the matter.

64. The prosecution had cited Sri Sukhawat Singh and Smt. Pradeep Kaur, who

were stated to be running this Punjabi Dhaba. They could not be examined at the

trial, since prosecution reported on 21.7.2011 that they had left Palamaner for

Punjab, and their whereabouts were not known. However, the fact that such

demand was made on him by A.1, was stated by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, in his earliest

version under Ex.P.1.

65. Thus, in respect of prior demands, on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju for gratification of

Rs.5,000/-, the evidence on record from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, is required to be

accepted, rejecting the contention of A.1. It is further making out that A.1 had also

suggested PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju that such gratification should be paid as early as

possible, to get favourable orders.

66. A.1 also relied on “Harishankar Vajpai, Vs. State of M.P.” [1998 (1) Crimes

549 (MP)], in the same context. In the cited decision, while referring to

appreciation of evidence of the defacto complainant, being highly interested in a

case of this nature, that his evidence must be considered with great caution, which

should be accepted only when corroborated, on facts, it was observed in Para 13

and Para 14 as follows:

“From the statement of Shri Dubey (DW 1) and on perusal of the report Exh.

D/18, D/19-C, D/20-C, D/27-C and D/28 it appears that the complainant

Omprakash (PW 1) is of criminal character and number of criminal cases have

:: 33 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

been registered against the complainant. On perusal of the judgment dated

31.1.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Mandleshwar in Spl. Cri. Case No.2/89

it is also found that in presence of the trap party, on 4.1.1989 when

Omprakash (PW 1) wanted to pay currency note of Rs.500/- by way of bribe

to the accused/appellant, the accused/appellant refused to take the aforesaid

currency notes and registered the case against the complainant Omprakash

(PW 1) under Crime No. 1/89 at PS Karhi under Sections 161 and 165 of the

IPC. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is also found that in the

aforesaid criminal case registered against the complainant Omprakash, he

was convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge for the offence punishable

under Section 165-A of the IPC.”

“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law applicable to

the case on hand, the trial Court has committed an error in relying on the

statement of Omprakash (PW 1) and interested witness, whose statement

does not get corroboration in material particulars from the statement of other

prosecution witnesses and the evidence on record of the case.”

67. From the material on record, particularly, the witnesses, who turned hostile in

this case, who worked in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/JMFC, Palamaner,

when A.1 was learned Presiding Officer of this Court, namely, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem,

PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu, PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy, PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi

Narayana, PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna, and PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, there is not even

whisper that there was any occasion for PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to behave in a rude

manner, and exhibiting a conduct unbecoming of an advocate, at A.1. The defence,

set up by A.1, did not specifically suggest a specific ground for PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju,

to entertain grudge against him to the extent of lodging a complaint to ACB, alleging

that there was demand for bribe by A.1, on him, to do a particular favour. The

suggested defence of requesting inference of A.1 not to open a rowdy sheet against

him, nor allow the Police to verify the records of the Court, prior to trap or his rude

behaviour with others, cannot be taken as a reason, having substance.

68. Further, reference to preliminary enquiry before such rowdy sheet against the

accused is made for the first time in the written arguments for A.1, and it was never

:: 34 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

specifically suggested that there was such preliminary enquiry against PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, when he was cross-examined by A.1, or any material was elicited, when

DW.2-Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy and DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu were examined in support of

his defence as well as the defence of A.2. Therefore, any amount of contentions

advanced on behalf of A.1 in this respect, have to be rejected. No basis for such

defence is made out basing on material record on preponderance of probabilities,

nor made out as a plausible explanation for alleged foisting of this case against A.1

by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Therefore, the background, sought to be set up by A.1, is

not substantiated on a plausible account.

69. Another contention, advanced on behalf of the accused is that, there is delay

in sending FIR to this Court by the Investigating Officer, and it is fatal to this case.

70. Ex.P.22-FIR was registered on 19.7.2003 at 6.00 a.m., by PW.13-then Dy.S.P.,

ACB, Tirupati. It was received in this Court on 19.7.2003 at 1.50 p.m., through P.C.

3216. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., stated that FIR must be forwarded to the Court in these

type of cases, forthwith. According to him, the journey time between Tirupati and

Nellore by bus or train is, 3 hours, and that P.C.3216, who delivered Ex.P.22 in this

Court, did not participate in pre-trap proceedings. Basing on these statements, it is

contended for A.2, and by A.1, that Ex.P.22 was not registered at 6.00 a.m., on

19.7.2003 and even otherwise, there is a delay of 4 hours, which is not explained by

the prosecution, in any manner.

71. Ex.P.1 was presented by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, to Joint Director

(Rayalaseema), ACB, Hyderabad initially, on 17.7.2003 and it was received by

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, in a sealed cover along with Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21.

It cannot be stated in such circumstances, that Ex.P.1 itself was manipulated.

Therefore, in the light of receipt of Ex.P.1 along with Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21, it cannot

be stated that a delay of 4 hours in receiving Ex.P.22-FIR in this court, is abnormal,

nor can it affect the credibility of Ex.P.1 or the entire case of prosecution. The scope

:: 35 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

of manipulation of Ex.P.1 by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tiruapti, is altogether ruled

out inasmuch as it was forwarded to Hon’ble High Court of A.P., by D.G., ACB, for

consideration of Hon’ble Chief Justice of A.P., and it was returned as per Ex.P.21 to

D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, by this letter of the Registrar (Vigilance), Hon’ble High Court

of A.P., on 17.7.2003 specifically referring that original complaint was returned to

D.G., ACB, for necessary action, while retaining a xerox copy. Therefore, in these

circumstances, such contention of the accused, cannot be accepted. The delay

itself is not fatal and it did not affect the credibility of the prosecution case, nor did

affect the very basis of the prosecution case.

72. According to the prosecution, the third demand for the gratification by A.1

was during the course of trap proceedings on 19.7.2003, in the chambers of A.1.

The trap proceedings, as per Ex.P.11-Mediator report, took place in between 12.15

p.m., and 3.30 p.m., in the premises of the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/JMFC,

Palamaner.

73. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.3-Sri G.

Prabhakar Rao, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, apart from Ex.P.3-the mediator

report relating to pre-trap proceedings, and Ex.P.11-the mediator report relating to

trap proceedings, apart from the circumstances surrounding recovery of cash, the

colour test conducted on A.2, seizure of his Uniform shirt in the course of such

proceedings. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao,

according to the prosecution, were the mediators in whose presence, all these

proceedings took place. But, PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana partly resiled in-part

from the case of the prosecution and turning hostile to it. Nonetheless, his evidence

to the extent stands, in consonance with proof offered by the prosecution by other

material in respect of both these proceedings, needs to be taken into consideration.

74. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana deposed in respect of pre-trap proceedings.

He was instructed in the course of pre-trap proceedings by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., to

:: 36 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

follow PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju as a shadow witness to observe as to what goes on

between PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.1, or PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.2, relating to

exchange of marked and tainted currency notes according to the prosecution. But,

on such crucial aspect of following PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju for such purpose, his

alleged observation of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju going up to the chambers of A.1 along

with him, that he and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju waited for some time outside the

chambers, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju entered his chambers thereafter, that there

was no possibility for him, to listen the conversation between A.1 and PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, or as to what went on in the chambers of A.1, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

and a Police Constable in uniform came out of A.1’s chambers, and that PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju handing over the tainted currency to the same Police Constable, who had

kept in his left pocket of Uniform shirt, who proceeded into Head Clerk’s Room, he

did not support the prosecution version. He denied having had made such

statements in respect of these circumstances, before the Investigating Officer,

which portion is specifically marked Ex.P.5(A) in his statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

He also denied having had made statement before the Investigating Officer in

respect of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju giving signal, sometime thereafter, PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati and other members of trap party rushing towards Head Clerk’s

room, whom he had also followed, observing the transaction that went on, and in

respect of preparation of Ex.P.11-mediator report.

75. As seen from the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi

Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao and PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tiruapti, along

with Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11, there is material to the effect that in the course of pre-trap

proceedings, which took place between 7.00 a.m., and 8.00 a.m., ten currency notes

in the denomination of Rs.500/-, of Rs.5,000/-, when produced by PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju at request of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., were applied phenolphthalein powder.

Such evidence is also proving that PW.13-then Dy.S.P., had instructed PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju not t touch these currency notes, that were kept in his left upper pocket of

:: 37 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

shirt, unless and until there was further demand by A.1, or by his nominee, including

A.2, and when such currency notes were delivered, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was

instructed to wipe his face thrice, using his kerchief, as signal, to enable the trap

party, to apprehend the recipient of the tainted currency.

76. The evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao,

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., and the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11 is also making out, that

A.2 was apprehended after receiving the tainted currency from PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, and was questioned in the room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, who was then

Head Clerk in that Court. Such evidence is also making out that tainted currency,

being MO.9, was recovered from A.2, which was in right upper pocket of his uniform

shirt. Their evidence is also making out, that A.2 was subjected to Sodium

Carbonate solution test, when he was directed to rinse his both hand fingers in

Sodium Carbonate solution, which turned pink.

77. The evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao,

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., and the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11 is further making out,

that MO.6-Uniform shirt of A.2, was seized and the inner linings of right upper

pocket of this shirt were subjected to Sodium Carbonate solution colour test, by

rinsing it in Sodium Carbonate solution, and this solution turned pink.

78. Apart from the evidence of these witnesses, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-

Sri M. Ramachandrudu, whose presence during this transaction on 19.7.2003, in the

room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, can never be doubted, supported such version of the

prosecution.

79. The evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao,

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., is also to the effect that, the serial numbers of the seized

currency notes, in the course of trap proceedings, were compared, with the one,

noted in Ex.P.3, and they were found tallying.

:: 38 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

80. Admittedly, PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao,

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., Inspectors, who accompanied PW.13-then Dy.S.P., attested

Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11-Mediator reports. Their signatures are found, in these mediator

reports, where they ought to be raising a presumption, that they had signed these

mediators reports, having had gone through the same, and knowing their contents.

PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, in cross-examination by learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor, admitted that in the departmental enquiry against A.1, he had

completely supported the version of the prosecution. Therefore, his version, that he

was not read-over the contents of these mediator reports, is apparently false .

81. It is obvious, that PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana was gained-over by A.1 and

was made to depose to omit such material, to afford corroboration to the evidence

of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in this case.

82. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana was cross-examined on 18.7.2011 during trial

in this case. The relevant portion of his statements, elicited in the cross-

examination by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, are as follows:

“I deposed in Departmental enquiry against A.1, supporting the version in all

the mediators reports. A.1 met me in the verandah of this Court once, during

lunch break, this day. I and A.1, had met together at the entrance of the

Court hall of learned I Addl. District Judge, Nellore and we wished each other.

It is not true that A.1 had informed me when we met together during that

time, as to what I shall depose in this case and similarly during lunch break,

he had refreshed as to what I should depose in t his case. It is not true that

the mediator reports incorporated the actual happenings and now, I am

giving different versions at request of both the accused, being gained over.”

83. These statements of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana clearly reflect what went

on to make him to depose in such manner. It is manifest, that he had chosen to

suppress the actual version, at the instance of A.1, to help him. PW.2-Sri Lakshmi

Narayana was aware that his service conditions were no more applicable to him,

:: 39 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

since he retired about 4 years prior to 18.7.2011, and had chosen to depart from the

prosecution version, while choosing to support it in part. Such portion, supporting

the case of the prosecution, can well be considered and can be relied on by the

prosecution, in terms of Section 154 (2) of Indian Evidence Act.

84. Attempts are made by the accused to question the veracity of the

prosecution version in respect of pre-trap proceedings and trap proceedings, relying

on certain statements, elicited in the cross-examination from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju,

the evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, as well

as PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati.

85. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., had received sealed cover from the office of D.G., ACB,

on 18.7.2003 at 9.00 p.m., through special messenger. He further stated, that he

attempted to secure the mediators after registering Ex.P.22-FIR on 19.7.2003 at

6.00 a.m. He also stated, that he did not have any information relating to this case

till he received sealed cover, on the night of 18.7.2003 at 9.00 p.m. But, the

evidence of PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana is that, on 18.7.2003, at about 8.00 p.m, or

9.00 p.m., his Divisional Manager gave a memo, directing him to attend ACB Office

at Tirupati on 19.7.2003 at 6.00 a.m. By that date, PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana was

working as Junior Assistant in Girijan Cooperative Corporation at Tirupati. PW.3-Sri

G. Prabhakar Rao stated in cross-examination for A.2, as on 18.7.2003, Executive

Engineer, R&B, Tirupati, had sent a memo at 7.00 p.m., to his house, asking him to

attend ACB Office at Tirupati on 19.7.2003 by 5.30 a.m.

86. According to the accused, these are contradictory versions, from the

prosecution witnesses, and that they point out that even before receiving the sealed

cover on 18.7.2003 at 9.00 p.m., PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, had made

arrangements to secure mediators for the trap, to be laid on 19.7.2003 and that

even before registering FIR, such arrangements were made. In re-examination,

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., stated that on 18.7.2003 night, he had instructed one of his

:: 40 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

Inspectors, to keep mediators ready for next day’s proceedings. He further stated,

that he had sent written requisitions to the concerned authorities after receiving

Ex.P.22-FIR. In cross-examination for A.2, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., further stated that he

gave such instructions to the Inspector to secure mediators and to keep them ready,

after he received sealed cover containing Ex.P.20, Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.1.

87. Nonetheless, the evidence of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., makes out that he should

have instructed his Inspector after 9.00 p.m., on 18.7.2003 to secure mediators for

next day’s event. Though the evidence of PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri

G. Prabhakar Rao is contra to such version of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., such discrepancy

or inconsistency is trivial in nature. The memos or requisitions issued by PW.13-

then Dy.S.P., to secure presence of PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri G.

Prabhakar Rao, as mediators, were not produced at the trial.

88. Contentions are advanced for the accused in relation to pre-trap proceedings

basing on discrepancy relating to reading over Ex.P.2-copy of FIR to the mediators

and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, as well as commencing of pre-trap proceedings. The

contents of Ex.P.3 reflected that pre-trap proceedings were commenced at 7.00

a.m., in the Office of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, at Tirupati. According to PW.2-Sri R.

Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, had read over the contents of Ex.P.2

and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju affirmed it’s contents. He further stated, that by the time

he reached ACB Office, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao was already reading over it’s

contents. However, he denied the suggestion for A.2, that the contents of Ex.P.2

were not read over to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, nor he affirmed it’s contents, being true.

PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao stated that Ex.P.2 was read over to them by Dy.S.P., and

thereafter, he and PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana subscribed their signatures to it.

89. As seen from the contents of Ex.P.3, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati gave

Ex.P.2 and these mediators went through the same, subscribed their initials thereto,

and ascertained facts, mentioned therein, from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. Therefore, the

:: 41 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

contents of Ex.P.3 are not to the effect that either PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao or

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., was reading over the contents of Ex.P.2 and that PW.2-Sri

Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao themselves went through it’s

contents. PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao expressed his ignorance, when suggested, if

PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana was already in attendance in that office, by the time he

went there. In chief-examination, PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana stated, that he and

PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao went to ACB Office at Tirupati on 19.7.2003 at 6.30 a.m. It

is corroborated by PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao as well as contents of Ex.P.3. In such

circumstances, his version, that PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao was already reading over

Ex.P.2, by the time, he went to ACB Office, is not correct.

90. These circumstances, pointed out for the accused, are trivial in nature, and

they are not affecting the credibility of the prosecution in any manner, nor affect it’s

substratum. The purpose of pre-trap proceedings is only limited. It is a record, to

prepare the currency notes, with application of phenolphthalein powder,

demonstration of chemical reaction between phenolphthalein powder and Sodium

Carbonate solution, appraising PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju or the defacto complainant, the

caution, to be observed in respect of delivering the tainted currency to the accused,

or with reference to instructions to shadow witness or ACB staff to follow and in

respect of receipt of signal on acceptance of the tainted currency. These facts are

proved in this case from the very evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-

Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., and Ex.P.3.

Therefore, the so-called lapses in respect of timing and the sequence of

commencement of such proceedings, cannot have any bearing.

91. It is contended for the accused, that when pre-trap proceedings was

conducted in between 7.00 a.m., and 8.00 a.m., on 19.7.2003, preparing Ex.P.3, it

should have been forwarded along with Ex.P.22-FIR to this Court. Since PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., ACB, did not forward Ex.P.3 along with Ex.P.22 to this Court, preparation of

Ex.P.3 itself is rendered to be doubtful.

:: 42 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

92. On behalf of the accused, the case of “G.D. Mariswamy, Vs. State of

Karnataka”, [2004 CRI.L.J. 3584 (Karnataka)], is relied on in this respect. It was

observed in this cited decision, in Para 25 with reference to fact situation, as to

preparation of mahazars being doubtful, as follows:

“It is pertinent to note that the complaint Ext. P. 9 is dated 19-3-1993. The

entrustment mahazar Ext. P.10 is dated 19-3-1993. Ext. P. 11 another

mahazar at Lokayuktha office is dated 19-3-1993. Similarly, Ext. P. 12 is a

mahazar prepared at the Lokayuktha office to evidence the fact of keeping

the notes in the shirt pocket of the complainant and on the same day Ext.

P.13 a mahazar dated 23-3-1993 was prepared as the trap was not

materialized. Though all these mahazars were prepared on 19-3-1993 and

23-3-1993, Exts. P.10 to P.13 were not sent to the jurisdictional Judge on the

respective date by keeping it in sealed covers. On a perusal of the above

mahazars Exts. P.10 to P.15, it is seen that they were produced to Court only

on 26-3-1993 as per the endorsements made on them by the concerned

judicial officer. By the above facts, it shows that the very preparing of the

mahazars Exts. P.11, P.12 and P.13 and P.14 becomes doubtful. That apart,

to prove the fact of preparing the mahazars Exts. P.10 and P.11 dated 19-3-

1993, Exts. P.12 and P.13 dated 23-3-1993 and Ext. P.14 dated 26-3-1993,

the prosecution has neither examined the material witness Raghaendra Rao

nor the Investigating Officer. The non-examination of the material witness

viz., Raghavendra Rao, who is said to have successively handled the notes on

all the occasions by keeping the notes in the pocket of the complainant and

removing it by keeping them in a sealed cover, and the Investigating Officer

not seizing the sealed covers is fatal to the case of the prosecution.”

93. But, in the facts and circumstances, when the evidence of the prosecution is

otherwise making out the pre-trap proceedings and proved it as a fact, mere

omission to forward Ex.P.3 along with Ex.P.22, is not fatal by itself, nor preparation

of Ex,.P.3, as such, can be doubted.

94. The evidence of prosecution from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.2-Sri Lakshmi

Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., as well as Ex.P.11 is to

the effect that, the trap party including PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju left the Office of

:: 43 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, at 8.30 a.m. PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, however, stated that

they reached Green Park Hotel at Palamaner at about 11.30 a.m. Thereafter, the

prosecution evidence through PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, is that, he reiterated the

instructions to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana and H.C. Venkata

Swamy, while directing PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana, to follow PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

and H.C. Venkataswamy, to follow at a small distance from both of them.

95. The evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is that, he left other members of trap

party, went to the chambers of A.1 in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge,

Palamaner, followed by PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana and H.C. Venkataswamy. After

reaching chambers of A.1, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he found him busy.

Therefore, he waited for a while and after observing that A.1 was free, he entered

the chambers.

96. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju further stated, that after entering the chambers, A.1

asked him, if he had brought the demanded amount and PW.1-Sri Nagaraju

answered in affirmative. According to PW.1-Sri Nagaraju, A.2 was in the chambers

of A.1, during that time. Then, according to PW.1-Sri Nagaraju, A.1 directed him, to

handover the cash to A.2, who was available in the chambers. Then, both of them

came out of the chambers and in the Court premises, according to PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, he handed over the tainted currency notes to A.2, from his shirt pocket,

which were received by A.2, using both hands, and had kept them in the right upper

pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, A.2 proceeded

towards the Head Clerk Room. Then, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he wiped

his face thrice, using his handkerchief, and this signal was received by H.C. Sri

Venkata Swamy. Thereupon, according to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, other members of

trap party rushed towards Head Clerk’s Room in that premises.

97. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati and other members of trap party came

opposite to PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and PW.13-then Dy.S.P., directed him to wait

:: 44 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

outside for some time, and to come in only when called again, according to PW.1-Sri

Y. Nagaraju. He further stated, that PW.13-then Dy.S.P., Inspectors, PW.2-Sri R.

Lakshmi Narayana and PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, and other members of trap party

went towards Head Clerk’s room.

98. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju further stated, that PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana

observed him, handing over tainted cash to A.2, which A.2 counted, using both

hands, and kept it in his right upper pocket of shirt, as well as proceeding towards

Head Clerk’s room.

99. In cross-examination by A.1, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated that when he came

at the chambers of A.1, he observed him smoking cigarette, and therefore, he felt

that he was busy. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju further stated, that he waited at the

entrance of the door for few seconds. He denied the suggestion of A.1, that he did

not directly enter the chambers of A.1, that he approached an attender, who was at

the entrance of the chambers for permission, to enter, that the attender approached

A.1, informed that an advocate was waiting to meet him, and when A.1 permitted

him to enter the chambers, he entered. PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju stated in cross-

examination for A.2, that he came to the chambers of A.1 from Green Park Hotel,

within five minutes.

100. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana stated that he got down the vehicle at Green

Park Hotel, Palamaner, when PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had just entered the Court

compound. He further stated, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju left at good pace while he

followed him slowly.

101. The evidence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana is also that, he observed

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju handing over cash to A.2 at the steps of main building. He

further stated, that within five minutes, he saw PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.2 coming

out of the verandah of the Court together with hands on shoulders. According to

him, he saw PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju handing over cash to A.2, which A.2 counted and

:: 45 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

had kept the same in his pocket on the right upper shirt. According to PW.2-Sri

Lakshmi Narayana, in the mean time, H.C. Sri Venkataswamy came there, caught

hold of the hand of A.2. According to PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana, after releasing

himself from H.C. Sri Venkataswamy, A.2 went towards Head Clerk’s room in that

building, and in the mean time, Dy.S.P., and other members of trap party came

there, who went towards Head Clerk’s room. He further stated, that he was at the

steps of main entrance, and PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was not found there. He further

stated, that he too followed members of trap party into Head Clerk’s room.

102. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana gave the distance between the main gate at

the Court compound and the place, where their vehicle was stopped at 200 or 300

Sq. yards. According to PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, this distance is about one

furlong. PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana further stated, that the distance between the

main gate of the compound and Court building proper, is about 20 to 30 yards, and

whereas, PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao gave this distance at 50 to 60 feet. According to

PW.3-Sri Prabhakar Rao, PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana had left other members of trap

party a minute after PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju left them towards the Court. PW.2-Sri

Lakshmi Narayana further stated, that by the time he entered the Court premises,

he did not observe PW.1-Sri Nagaraju. According to contents of Ex.P.11 and the

evidence of PW.13-then Dy.S.P., as well as PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, PW.1-Sri

Nagaraju left them at about 11.10 a.m., and the signal was received at 12.10 p.m.

The evidence of PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana, is not to that effect, and he did not

state in respect of signal given by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju or the time, when such

signal was given.

103. The accused pointed out such differences and discrepant nature of evidence,

adduced by the prosecution. They also relied on the statements of PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., in cross-examination that his investigation disclosed that PW.1-Sri Nagaraju

entered chambers of A.1 before 12.00 noon. He further stated, that PW.1-Sri

Nagaraju waited outside the chambers of A.1 between 11.00 a.m., and 12.10 noon,

:: 46 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

as per his investigation. But, he stated, that PW.1-Sri Nagaraju did not specifically

state the time, when he entered the chambers of A.1.

104. PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, manifestly gave a different account, drifting

away from the prosecution version to accommodate the defence of A.1, and

therefore, his statements in this respect, cannot be taken being true.

105. According to the accused, going by the version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, he

should have entered the chambers of A.1, by 11.15 a.m., or 11.20 a.m. It is further

contended, that when the evidence of prosecution is that, the signal was received at

12.10 p.m., it remained unexplained, why there was a delay of an hour in giving

signal by PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. It is further pointed out, that considering the case of

the prosecution that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.2 were in the chambers of A.1,

when A.1 is alleged to have directed PW.1-Sri Nagaraju to deliver the bribe amount

to A.2, and according to his case, when both of them came out together, the

unexplained situation of receipt of signal at 12.10 p.m., raises any amount of

suspicion about the story of prosecution in this respect as well as the evidence of

PW.1-Sri Nagaraju.

106. A.1 and A.2 have denied the case of the prosecution to the effect that, A.1

had directed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to deliver the bribe amount to A.2, and presence

of A.2 in the chambers of A.1, when PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju had met A.1.

107. The evidence of prosecution is specific, that after receiving signal at 12.10

p.m., from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, the entire trap party rushed into the Court

premises, and into the room of Head Clerk, namely, PW.4-Sri Hasheem.

108. Apart from the evidence of PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, PW.13-then Dy.S.P.,

ACB, Tirupati and contents of Ex.P.11, in respect of apprehension of A.2 by trap

party, there is evidence of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, then Head Clerk (since retired) as

well as the typist-cum-assistant, being PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu, supporting

:: 47 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

them. Their evidence points out that it was at about 12.15 or 12.20 p.m., A.2 was

brought into the room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem. The version presented by PW.2-Sri

R. Lakshmi Narayana that H.C. Sri Venkataswamy caught hold of hands of A.2, who

got himself released, and entered the room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, is manifestly

false. PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu also stated, that A.2 was brought into the room

of PW.4-Sri Hasheem, when he was in his seat in that room, attending to the work,

by two persons, holding out hands and A.2 was shouting to set him free. But, the

same is not the version of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, though he stated that A.2 was

brought into his room by two persons. Both these witnesses were treated hostile by

the prosecution, and were subjected to cross-examination by learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor.

109. PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem worked in Judicial Department for 38 years, who had

experience in civil as well as criminal work. He was associated with A.1 for more

than two years in the same Court. He had also known A.2, who was attending the

Court, as concerned Constable of Palamaner Police Station. Similarly, PW.5-Sri M.

Ramachandrudu was associated with A.1 for about 1 ½ years, when he was learned

Presiding Officer in that Court, and he had known A.2, as the Court Constable.

Therefore, they too, though supported the prosecution to some extent, in respect of

bringing A.2 into the room of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, gave a slightly different version

in the above manner. But, the fact remained proved from such evidence on record

including from the evidence of PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M.

Ramachandrudu, is that at about 12.15 p.m., or 12.20 p.m., A.2 was apprehended

and was found in the room of Head Clerk (PW.4-Sri Hasheem) in that Court.

Thereafter, further trap proceedings took place.

110. In the light of such circumstance, the discrepancy in respect of the time gap,

found from the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and other witnesses, examined by

the prosecution, or giving signal, did not bear significant effect.

:: 48 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

111. On 19.7.2003, undisputedly, there was a Lok-Adalat sitting in that Court.

Both criminal and civil matters were posted for settlement in that Lok-Adalat. A.2,

and other Constables of different Police Stations, within the jurisdiction of learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, attended this sitting. Presence of A.2 on

that day in the Court premises, is undisputed, and is admitted.

112. According to A.1, he came to the Court and was in Chambers at 10.30 a.m. It

is also deposed to by PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy, his Personal Assistant

(Stenographer), PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, the Criminal Bench Clerk, PW.8-Sri

K. Bala Krishna and PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, who are the attenders on duty. At about

11.45 a.m., he went into the Court hall to attend Lok-Adalat sitting.

113. The version of PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, who was the attender on 19.07.2003 is

that, Smt. Seetha Mahalakshmi, a member of Lok-Adalat, Branch Manager, State

Bank of India, Palamaner, Miss Barkath, Lady advocate and Sri Shoukath Ali,

advocate, came at the chambers and informed that they intended to meet A.1. By

then, according to PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju was moving about in

the verandah of Court hall. Thereafter, according to PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, PW.1-Sri

Y. Nagaraju came to him and informed that he intended to speak to A.1 in his

chambers. By then, all of the afore-stated four persons were in the chambers of A.1,

at which time, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju entered and spoke to A.1 in his chambers.

Thereafter, according to PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, PW.1-Sri Nagaraju came out of the

chambers immediately. Others, who were in the chambers, also came out,

according to PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi. Thereafter, according to him, A.1 entered the

Court hall.

114. This witness was treated hostile, and with the permission of the Court, he was

cross-examined by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor. He expressed his ignorance, if he

did not make a statement before the Investigating Officer about the presence of

four persons, referred to above, in the chambers of A.1. He stated that he did not

:: 49 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

state before the Investigating Officer, that PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, while entering the

chambers of the learned Magistrate, stopped, waited outside for some time, later

went inside and that after a brief spell, A.1 came out into the Court hall, attended

the Lok-Adalat and that A.2 was caught by ACB Officers, from whom, Rs.5,000/- was

recovered, and thus, he denied having had made such statement, marked Ex.P.15.

115. PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi stated in cross-examination by A.1, that PW.1-Sri

Nagaraju came to the chambers at about 11.00 a.m., or 11.15 a.m., at which time,

there was none, except the four persons, stated above, in his chambers. Again, he

stated that, PW.1-Sri Nagaraju entered the chambers of Presiding Officer at about

11.10 a.m., and another version of this witness, elicited in cross-examination by A.1,

is that no Police Constable, including A.2, entered the chambers when A.1 was in the

chambers between 10.30 a.m., and 11.45 a.m., on 19.7.2003.

116. Thus, this witness, namely, PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, supported the version of A.1

in this case. Apart from the evidence of PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, A.1 also examined

DW.4-Smt. J. Seethalakshmi. She has been a member of Lok-Adalat at Palamaner

for the last 10 years, and her husband Sri Subrahmanyam, is a senior advocate at

Palamaner. According to her, she went to the chambers of A.1, on 19.7.2003, since

she had received a communication relating to Lok-Adalat sitting on that day. She

deposed about the presence of Miss Barkath, a Lady advocate of Palamaner, and

then Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Palamaner, in the chambers of A.1 by the

time she entered. Later, she added presence of Mr. Shoukath Ali, advocate, in

cross-examination for A.2. She stated, that PW.1-Sri Nagaraju came into the

chambers about 20 minutes later, and represented that his father-in-law was unwell

and requested adjournment of his matters. But, she added, that she did not hear

his representation properly and attentively. According to her, thereupon, PW.1-Sri

Nagaraju, left when A.1 was stating as to why he should represent in chambers,

which he could represent in open Court. She stated, that she was in chambers of

A.1 up to 11.30 a.m., or 11.45 a.m., sitting quiet, when A.1 was attending to his

:: 50 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

work. She further stated, that at 11.45 a.m., when Lok-Adalat proceedings

commenced, on being informed by the Court staff, she, Miss Barkath, Branch

Manager, SBI, Palamaner, came out of the chambers of A.1, and entered the Court

hall. The proceedings went on, according to her, up to 2.30 p.m., or 3.00 p.m.

117. In cross-examination by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, she stated that, only

for the purpose of intimating her presence for the sitting of Lok-Adalat, and to greet

A.1, she entered his chambers on 19.7.2003. According to her, A.1 offered tea to all

those present in his chambers and after they were served tea within 10 or 15

minutes. After taking tea, they came out, according to her.

118. When her version that after taking tea, all of them came out from the

chambers of A.1, which was served within 10 or 15 minutes after A.1 offered it,

makes out that she was not in the chambers of A.1 till 11.45 a.m. Such inference

has to be drawn, basing on her statement, when considered with the version of

PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, in his chief-examination in this respect. The version of PW.9-

Sri S. Pitchandi makes out that, when PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju came out of chambers

after making representation to A.1, others who were in the chambers, also came

out. Therefore, as soon as PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju came out, from the evidence of

PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi and DW.4-Smt. J. Seethalakshmi, if their presence is to be

believed in the chambers of A.1, they should have come out within 10 to 15 minutes

after offering tea by A.1. Nonetheless, she chose to depose that she was in the

chambers up to 11.45 a.m., along with Miss Barkath and others. It is manifest, that

she came forward out of sympathy for A.1, to help the accused in his defence. She

is an interested witness in A.1. Hence, she gave such version, supporting such

defence, as rightly contended for the prosecution.

119. In respect of presence of DW.4-Sri J. Seethalakshmi or others, found in the

chambers of A.1, on 19.7.2003, it is significant to note that PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna,

who was another Process Server, attending the duty, did not come out with such

:: 51 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

version. He is silent in this respect. It is worthy to note, that A.1 did not suggest to

PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna in cross-examination, that DW.4-Smt. J. Seethalakshmi, Miss

Barkath, Mr. Shoukath Ali, and Branch Manager, S.B.I., Palamaner, were with A.1,

when PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju entered the chambers of A.1. He and PW.9-Sri S.

Pitchandi were attending to the duty in the court hall, though according to them,

PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi was attending at the chambers. The chambers and court hall

are attached, and if there was presence of others in chambers of A.1, during that

time, it would not have gone out from the notice of PW.8-Sri K. Bala Krishna. It is

manifest, that PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi, being an associate of A.1, being his attender,

did not support the prosecution version, came out with a new version at the trial to

help A.1. Therefore, the evidence of DW.4-Smt. J. Seetha Lakshmi, cannot be

implicitly relied on.

120. The version of A.2 in this respect is that, he was in the Court hall, attending to

Lok-Adalat matters up to 12.10 p.m. PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, the Bench

Clerk, deposed that A.2 was in the Court hall on that day up to 11.45 a.m.

According to A.2, he went out of the Court hall along with other Constables, when

the civil work was taken up. According to A.2, when they went to the canteen in the

Court premises, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju came to them, offered tea, and paid for tea.

During that time, according to the version of A.2, PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju gave away

Rs.5,000/-, stating that he had to pay fine in Lok-Adalat sitting on behalf of Senthil

Kumar and Moula for an offence under Sec.338 IPC as per suggestion made to PW.1-

Sri Y. Nagaraju on behalf of A.2. His version is also that, PW.1-Sri Nagaraju further

represented that he was going to Bus stand to make his father-in-law board a bus,

and if his father-in-law happened to see the cash with him, he would take it away.

Therefore, for such purpose, according to version of A.2, PW.1-Sri Nagaraju gave

him Rs.5,000/-, which he counted and kept it in his shirt’s pocket.

121. In support of such version, A.2 relied on the evidence of DW.3-Sri A.G.

Vadivelu, who was then working as a Police Constable in Gangavaram Police Station.

:: 52 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

He supported such version of A.2 in chief-examination. But, in cross-examination,

he stated that he had known A.2, since about 6 months prior to 19.7.2003 and he

has been on speaking terms with him even now. There is no record to prove his

presence on 19.7.2003, produced in this case on behalf of A.2, and DW.3-Sri A.G.

Vadivelu stated that he cannot produce any record, to the effect that he was

deputed on Court duty on 19.7.2003. According to him, he and three other

constables had witnessed A.2, being apprehended by ACB Officers in Court

premises. He further stated, that he and other Police Constables did not inform any

of their superiors or any one about this incident. He categorically stated, that for the

first time he came out with such version, as DW.3 in this trial, which he did not

inform anyone. He denied the suggestion of learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, that he

did not meet A.2 or any other PCs., on 19.7.2003, and since A.2, being his friend, he

has been deposing false, to save him from this prosecution.

122. Consideration of evidence of DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu, makes out that on

account of affinity between him and A.2, he came out with such version. There was

a possibility of producing record to prove that he was deputed on Court duty on

19.7.2003. If such version has been really true and correct, a representation could

have been made on behalf of A.2, as rightly contended by learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor, to their superiors, and DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu as well as other

Constables could have presented such version, during the course of investigation

itself. For the first time, he had chosen to come out with such story, as DW.3, in the

course of trial, only to help A.2. Hence, the evidence of DW.3-Sri A.G. Vadivelu,

cannot implicitly be relied on, nor it is inspiring confidence, nor found to be

acceptable.

123. Contentions are also advanced for the accused, that A.2 made a spontaneous

statement when he was apprehended, setting out similar version, presented in his

defence. It is further stated, that another version was added in the guise of

confronting the version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to him, implicating himself and A.1.

:: 53 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

Thus, two different versions from A.2, were brought out by the Investigating Officer,

as per contents of Ex.P.11, and whereas, the first version being true, and later

version was purposely included, to support this false case.

124. Such statements, incorporated in Ex.P.11, were made in the course of

investigation, and they are clearly inadmissible under Sec.162 Cr.P.C. ( vide “D.V.

Narasimham, Vs. State” [1969 CRI.L.J. 1016 (SC)] ). Therefore, such contentions

cannot be accepted.

125. The versions, presented by A.1 and A.2 in respect of demand in the chambers

for payment of Rs.5,000/- by A.1, on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, directing him to deliver to

A.2, are highly interested. Their denial of the prosecution version itself is interested.

Their attempt to prove their defence for the reasons stated above, is not acceptable,

and it lacks substance and credibility.

126. Therefore, relying on the evidence of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, it has to be held

that, there was a demand on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju by A.1 in his chambers, in

enquiring him, if he had brought Rs.5,000/- and when answered in affirmative by

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, A.1 directed him to pay to A.2, which he received, after

coming out of chambers in the Court premises.

127. The accused also relied on a contradiction marked from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju,

under Ex.D.2, in relation of the manner, in which both PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and A.2

came out of the chambers, either together or one after another. The accused also

relied on Ex.D.3, a contradiction, marked from PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana in

respect of keeping the tainted cash by A.2 in his left shirt pocket. These two

statements are found, in their versions, recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., by the

Investigating Officer, and both of them have chosen to deny the same.

Nonetheless, they represent only minor contradictions. It did not matter much, if

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju or A.2 came first out of chambers, or together, or one after

another. The fact remains that, both of them were in the chambers of A.1, and then

:: 54 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

they came out. The proof is offered and established in respect of acceptance of

tainted currency in the court premises. Though PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana gave

a different version in this respect, it is making out that, in the court premises itself,

A.2 had received cash of Rs.5,000- from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju. The place of receipt

of cash by A.2 from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, is found to be within the Court premises.

128. Contentions are also advanced for the accused, that the versions of PW.2-Sri

Lakshmi Narayana, PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem, and PW.5-Sri

M. Ramachandrudu, are making out that Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.11-mediator reports were

dictated by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, and that PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar ao did

not prepare these mediator reports on his own. According to PW.3-Sri Prabhakar

Rao, a major portion of mediator report was prepared by him and on certain

aspects, he had guidance from PW.13-then Dy.S.P. Even if it is taken that these

mediators reports were dictated by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., for arguments sake, they

may at best make out that they presented interested version of the prosecution,

and their independent nature is affected. But, when the core of the prosecution

case is established in respect of recovery of cash from A.2, soon after it’s receipt by

him in the premises of the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judl. Magistrate of I

Class, Palamaner, having regard to quick succession and manner in which such

recovery was affected, of such marked currency, a reasonable presumption can be

drawn under Sec.114 of Evidence Act, that it was the tainted currency, which was

received by A.2, a short period ago, for the purpose for which, it was delivered.

129. In this respect, the observations of their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court,

in the case of “Hazarilal Vs. State of Delhi (Delhi Administration)”, [AIR 1980 SC

873], as to application of presumption under Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act, should

be borne in mind, which are as under:

“It is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct

evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events

which followed in quick succession in the present case lead to the only

:: 55 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

inference that the money was obtained by the accused from PW.3. Under

Section 114 of the Evidence Act the Court may presume the existence of any

fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common

course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in

their relation to facts of the particular case. One of the illustrations to

Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the Court may presume that a person

who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the

thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can

account for his possession.”

130. Contentions are advanced for the accused, that the evidence of mediators as

such, cannot be relied on, and they are interested. The case of “Som Parkash, Vs.

State of Punjab” [1992 CRI.L.J. 490 (SC)], is relied on, in this respect to the effect

that, the evidence of mediators cannot be relied on, since they are not independent

witnesses. It is pertinent to note the observations of Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Para No.2 of this authority in this respect, as under:

“... We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that in the face of the

finding that the witnesses who formed part of the raiding party were not

independent and the evidence regarding handing over money to the

appellant being unbelievable, the conviction of the appellant cannot be

sustained.”

131. It is contended for the accused, that the manner, in which the case of the

prosecution presented, makes out as if the cash was accepted in a public place and

it is beyond comprehension. The case of “Pooran Chandra Rastogi, Vs. State of

U.P.” [1992 CRI.L.J. 2430 (Allahabad)] is relied on for the accused in this respect.

The relevant observations in the cited decision in Para 32, are as under:

“The prosecution story as well the statement of prosecution witnesses does

not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court also for the reason of the fact

that on the appointed date, to receive the bribe the accused in spite of the

fact that he was all alone at about 4.30 p.m., at the stair-case of his house

when P.W. 1 Jaiprakash came to him, would refuse to accept the bribe but in

full public view on a public street in presence of the rickshaw puller and

persons standing nearby, while he was going to board the train along with his

wife he would have accepted the bribe.”

:: 56 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

132. But, the facts in this case are different. It is on account of direction of A.1,

after coming out of chambers in Court premises, A.2 had received MO.7-tainted

currency from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, as per the proof lead by the prosecution. It was

on account of a prior arrangement, directed by A.1. There was possibility of A.1

himself receiving directly from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in his chambers or A.2 could

have been asked by A.1, to receive the same from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in the

chambers itself. But, the mode of arrangement was differently directed by A.1,

probably, with a view to avoid receipt of such amount in his chambers. Therefore,

receiving MO.7-currency by A.2 from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in Court premises, is not

an artificial circumstance by itself, nor it affects the credibility of the version of

prosecution in any manner.

133. Thus, the prosecution has also established that there was a demand on

19.7.2003 in the chambers on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, by A.1, and consequent receipt

of the same by A.2. The contention of A.2 that there is no proof that he demanded

any money directly from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, either in Ex.P.1 or at any stage, set

out by the prosecution, is not a factor of consideration. He had tacitly abetted such

demand of A.1, on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, in receiving such amount, as per his

direction. The process of receipt of such amount itself imbibes such acceptance on

account of demand on behalf of A.1. Thus, the prosecution has clearly established,

that there was prior demand for gratification by A.1 on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, on

09.6.2003 as well as on 15.7.2003, that culminated, in receipt of such money by A.2

on behalf of A.1, pursuant to his further demand on 19.7.2003, in his chambers, in

the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner.

134. It is contended for the accused, that H.C. Sri Venkataswamy is stated to have

had followed PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju and PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, from their

vehicle, up to the court building, following them in close quarters. Yet, according to

the accused, there is absolutely no whisper from PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao or

:: 57 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, that H.C. Sri Venkataswamy had observed

acceptance of bribe by A.2 from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and in respect of signal,

received by him from PW.1-Sri Nagaraju. Therefore, according to the accused,

neither PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana, nor H.C. Sri Venkataswamy, follow PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, or witness anything, as alleged by the prosecution.

135. The purpose of directing H.C. Sri Venkataswamy to follow PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju and PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana was only to receive the signal, as

arranged, from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, soon after acceptance of receipt of the bribe

amount. There is no reference in the evidence of PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao and

PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, that H.C. Sri Venkataswamy had observed the

above transaction, nor apparently, it was the purpose, for which he was deputed to

follow them. PW.2-Sri Lakshmi Narayana had referred his presence, stating that he

had held the hands of A.2, soon after accepting bribe amount from PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju. Reasons have already been assigned, holding that PW.2-Sri Lakshmi

Narayana became a pliable witness for A.1, and purposely resiled from the

prosecution version. Thus, to that extent, the evidence of PW.2-Sri Lakshmi

Narayana is already held to be untruthful. In such circumstances, omission to refer

the role of H.C. Sri Venkataswamy by PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao and PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, is not a matter of considerable significance in this case.

136. On behalf of the accused, it is contended that, in the absence of proof of

demand, it cannot be stated, that mere recovery of currency notes from A.2, will

make out any of the charges against the accused. Reliance is placed i this respect,

apart from “Pooran Chandra Rastogi, Vs. State of U.P.” [1992 CRI.L.J. 2430

(Allahabad)] referred to supra, reliance is also placed on case of “V. Venkata

Subbarao, v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P.”, [2007 CRI.L.J. 754

(SC)], and the case of “Babu Lal Bajpai, Appellant v. State of U.P.”, [1994 CRI.L.J.

1383 (SC)], which are already referred to supra. The case of “Amrishbhai

:: 58 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

Manubhai Brahmbhatt & Another, Vs. State of Gujarat” [2007 CRI. L.J. 3651

(Gujarat)], wherein, it was observed in Para 25 and Para 26, on facts, as under:

“... The strong probability is emerging that when the accused was

preparing a receipt, the amount was put on the table and receipt was given

to the complainant and then the amount was lifted by the accused. Receipt

was to be prepared on completion of Form : F only. The complainant must

have simply walked away after putting the amount on table. Though it was

indicated that Rs.60/- was octroi fees, he put one currency note more of

same denomination i.e. Rs.20/- denomination and walked away, otherwise

the anthracene powder marks would have been also at many other places

then the place where the same are actually found.”

“In this background, the explanation given by the accused while

answering the questions to the Court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,

appears to be very probable. It is not the case of the prosecution that

accused No.2 had ever demanded any amount. .....”

137. The case of “B. Doraswamy, Vs. State”, [2003 CRI.L.J. 4055 (A.P. High

Court)] is also relied on for the accused. In Para 11 of the cited decision, on facts, it

was observed as follows: -

“This evidence clinchingly establishes that the appellant was present at the

Conference from 10.30 a.m., to 5 p.m., on that day and he took lunch

arranged at the office of P.W.-4. Neither P.W.-4 was declared hostile nor was

he examined by the prosecution to explain this circumstance. That being the

situation, the version presented by PW-4 has to be accepted. When once

that is so, the theory of PW-1 meeting the appellant at his residence on 22-2-

1994 at 1.30 P.M., becomes unbelievable. Therefore, the evidence adduced

by the prosecution as to existence of demand is rather shaky.”

138. The case of “V. Subramaniam v. State”, reported in 2006 CRI.L.J. (NOC)

556 (Mad.), is also relied on for A.2, in the same context.

139. The case of “Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat”,[2002 CRI.L.J.

2787 (SC)] is also relied on for A.2 in this context, where, in Para 5 and Para 6, their

Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed as follows: -

:: 59 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

“In our view, mere acceptance of money without there being any other

evidence would not be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13

(1)(d)(i). ....”

“.... Therefore, for convicting the person under Section 13 (1)(d), there must

be evidence on record that accused ‘obtained’ for himself or for any other

person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal

means or by abusing his position as a public servant or he obtained for any

person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public

interest.”

140. A.2 did not deny his apprehension by ACB Officers, during such time,

recovery of MO.7-tainted currency from him, conduct of colour test on him, seizure

of his Uniform shirt and subjecting it to Sodium Carbonate solution colour test, at

the trial, and answers in his examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., are to that effect.

In respect of proof of acceptance of gratification by A.2, reliance is placed for him in

the case of “Prabhakar Balaji Bhoge & Another, Vs. State of Maharashtra” [2007

CRI.L.J. 532 (Bom.)]. In the cited decision, it was observed in Para 12 on facts, as

under: -

“In view of the aforesaid fact that the evidence of P.W. 5 Damaji clearly

falsifies the evidence of P.W. 2 Devidas, the complainant, in respect of

demand of money by appellant-Prabhakar and since both P.W. 2 Devidas and

P.W. 5 Damaji did not state that appellant-Prabhakar had received the

money, the charge of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read

with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be held to have

been proved against appellant-Prabhakar. There is no evidence whatsoever

on record to show that appellant-Muralidhar had been instructed by

appellant-Prabhakar to get the notes changed from the shop of P.W 8 Nalini,

except the word of P.W. 2 Devidas, which has to be discarded, because it is

contradicted to that of P.W. 5 Damaji. The possibility of P.W. 12 PSI Shende’s

having an axe to grind against appellant-Prabhakar, cannot be ruled out

because of his service record as also his evidence. ...”

141. There is no dispute in respect of proposition that prior demands, should

necessarily be established by the prosecution on account of which, the gratification

:: 60 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

is accepted by the accused. The settled proposition of law is also that, mere

recovery of tainted and marked currency is not sufficient by itself, to bring home

any of the charges either under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, or under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of

P.C. Act.

142. In this context, the effect of Sec.20 of P.C. Act, should necessarily borne in

mind, which directs the Court, to raise a mandatory presumption that the

gratification, if proved that it was accepted, it must be treated that it was so

accepted as a motive or reward for the official favour, namely, discharge of official

functions by the public servants, towards the defacto complainant. It cannot be

stated, that Section 20 of P.C. Act is confined only in respect of person, who actually

accepted the gratification. If such person had accepted such gratification on behalf

of any other person, the mandatory presumption should also be raised against him,

having regard to Section 7 of P.C. Act. Therefore, it cannot be contended that since

A.1 was not the recipient of the gratification directly from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju,

Section 20 of P.C. Act cannot be made applicable. Neither it can be contended for

A.2, that since there is no proof of demand for such gratification, nor subsisting

official favour towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju for him, Section 20 of P.C. Act cannot be

made applicable.

143. The evidence on record is clearly making out that there was a subsisting

official favour towards PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju for A.1 on account of pendency of

Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Palamaner. On account of such favour, a demand was made on PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju for a gratification of Rs.5,000/- by A.1, on 09.06.2003, on 15.7.2003 and

finally on 19.7.2003. On account of it, such gratification of Rs.5,000/- was received

on further demand by A.1 from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, as directed by A.1, by A.2.

Therefore, the factual basis or foundation, laid in this case, is clearly attracting

application under Sec.20 of P.C. Act, against both the accused. It is not as though

MO.7-bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- was received by A.2 on his own, as per the

:: 61 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

evidence on record. The effect of Sec.20 of P.C. Act is not repelled or rebutted by

any acceptable or satisfactory evidence, on behalf of the accused. It is a rebuttable

presumption, and yet the circumstances, relied on for both the accused, and

evidence let-in on their behalf, is not proved to be satisfactory or acceptable to repel

it. Therefore, in such circumstances, the legal presumption under Sec.20 of P.C. Act,

should be raised in this case.

144. In this context, it is desirable to rely on the observations of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of “Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra” [2001

CRI. L.J. 175 (SC)]. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para 12 of this

authority, observed as under: -

“The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is

that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said

premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification

was accepted “as motive or reward” for doing or forbearing to do any official

act. So that word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward

because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the Court has to

draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will

again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to

each other like 'gratification or any valuable thing'. If acceptance of any

valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as

motive or reward for the official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated

in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public

servant who received it.”

145. These observations were consistently followed with approval in all later

decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, including “M. Narasinga Rao, v. State of Andhra

Pradesh, [2001 CRI.L.J. 515 (SC)], “State of A.P., Vs. V. Vasudeva Rao” [2004

CRI.L.J. Page 620 (SC)], “T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of A.P.”,[2004 CRI.L.J. 884

(SC)], and “State of A.P., Vs. C. Uma Maheswara Rao and another”, [2004 CRI.L.J.

2040 (SC)].

:: 62 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

146. On behalf of the prosecution, the case of “Manikrao Abaji Thonge, Vs. The

State of Maharashtra” [1993 CRI. L. J. 3796 (Bom.)] is relied on in this context. In

the cited decision, in Para 22, with reference to application of Section 161 IPC and

Sec.5 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1947, it was observed as under:

“In my view, to constitute an offence under Section 161 of the I.P.C., it is

sufficient that there is an offer of a bribe to a public servant in the belief that

he has an opportunity or power in the exercise of his official function to show

the offerer a desired favour, although, the public servant has, in reality, no

such power. Performance of the act which is the consideration for the bribe is

not essential but it is essential that the bribe should be obtained as a motive

or reward. Similarly, whether the complainant desires the accused to

perform by way of consideration of the bribe whether it is actually performed

or not at the time of the acceptance of the bribe, is not relevant. What is

relevant is that the amount of bribe has been received by corrupt or illegal

means by abusing his position as a public servant. Once it is shown that the

amount has been received by a public servant by abusing his position as a

public servant and that amount is received by corrupt or illegal means, the

offence is complete. Hence, even if the illegal gratification is received after

the official act is done, yet, it will constitute an offence under Section 161 of

the IPC. As far as the wordings of Section 5 (1)(d) are concerned, the same

are wider than the wording of Section 161. The said Section 5 (1)(d) provides

that a public servant would be guilty of committing criminal misconduct if he

by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public

servant obtains for himself or through any other person any valuable thing or

pecuniary advantage. ....”

147. The case of “Prakash Shankarrao Kamble, Vs. State of Maharashtra” [2000

CRI. L.J. 2110 (Bom.)] is relied on for the prosecution in this respect. In this cited

decision, in Para 17 and in Para 23, the following are the observations, made:

“As rightly observed by the trial Court, for succeeding in the case under

Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused

made demand of bribe and accepted amount pursuant to that demand. It

may be that accused could not directly do any favours to the person from

whom he was accepting the demand. However, if the accused is capable of

doing certain work and he holds a post or position which can ordinarily be

taken to be capable of giving him necessary powers then nothing more is

:: 63 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

required to be proved by the prosecution that the fact of demand, the

representation made by the accused, of doing favours and the fact of

acceptance of bribe.” [Para 17]

“It will therefore be clear that prosecution has succeeded in proving the

demand of bribe by the accused and also succeeded in proving that the

accused accepted the bribe. The explanation of the accused that money was

thrust in his pocket on account of rivalry or enmity is not at all acceptable

and has been rightly rejected by the trial Court.” [Para 23]

148. On behalf of the accused, in this respect, reliance is placed on “Subash

Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat”,[2002 CRI.L.J. 2787 (SC)], “V. Venkata

Subbarao, v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P.”, [2007 CRI.L.J. 754

(SC)], “Babu Lal Bajpai, Appellant v. State of U.P.”, [1994 CRI.L.J. 1383 (SC)], and

“M. Narasinga Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh”, [2001 CRI.L.J. 515 (SC)], referred

to supra, relied on in the same context.

149. In the factual context of this case, basing on the principles laid down in all the

above authorities, the irresistible inference to be drawn in this case is that the

mandatory nature of Section 20 of P.C. Act, raising a presumption that gratification

was accepted and received by A.2 on behalf of A.1 for passing favourable orders in

Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000, has to be drawn. Bearing in mind, the

principles laid down by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in respect of the

premise, to be established in the case of “Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of

Maharashtra” [2001 CRI. L.J. 175 (SC)] referred to supra, inasmuch as such

premise is established in this case, the operation of Section 20 of P.C. Act against

both the accused, shall be made applicable, since unrebutted by the accused.

150. Contentions are advanced on behalf of the accused that the sole testimony of

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju is not safe to rely on without there being any corroboration,

and hence, the benefit of the same shall be given to the accused. Reliance is placed

in this respect, in the case of “Jaswanth Singh, Vs. State of Punjab”, [1973 CRI.L.J.

:: 64 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

664 (SC)]. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para 8 of this authority, on

facts, observed as under:

“As PW 1 is the complainant, his evidence will have to be considered with

great caution and it will not be ordinarily safe to accept his interested

testimony unless there is material corroboration found in the other evidence

adduced by the prosecution. Such evidence, in our opinion is available in this

case. No doubt PW 3 has turned hostile, but in his statement to the police

under section 161 he has given a version supporting the prosecution case.

But in the court he has stated that though PW 1 paid the amount to the

accused as bribe, the appellant threw the amount thereby implying that PW 1

was, so to say, thrusting a bribe on an unwilling taker. It is not as if PW 3’s

evidence can be discarded altogether. One thing that emerges from his

evidence is that PW 1 and the appellant travelled together in his rickshaw at

about 1-15 P.M. on April 30, 1968. If the plea of the appellant is that PW 1

attempted to bribe him and that he threw the amount then the matter will

have to be considered from a totally different angle. On the other hand we

have already mentioned that the plea of the appellant was one of total

denial.”

151. The case of “Panalal Damodar Rathi, Vs. State of Maharashtra”, [1979

CRI.L.J. 936 (SC)] is also relied on for the accused in the same context. The

relevant observations are in Para 9, which are extracted hereunder:

“It will be seen that the version of the complainant that the appellant asked

the complainant whether he had brought the money and that the

complainant told him that he had and that the appellant asked him to pay the

money to the second accused is not spoken to by the Panch witness P.W.3.

According to Panch witness on the complainant asking the appellant whether

his work will be achieved, the appellant assured him in the affirmative and

the appellant told the complainant what was to be given to the second

accused. It is significant that P.W.3 does not mention about the appellant

asking the complainant whether he had brought the money and on the

complainant replying in the affirmative asking the complainant to pay the

money to the second accused. Omission by P.W.3 to refer to any mention of

money by the appellant would show that there is no corroboration of

testimony of the complainant regarding the demand for the money by the

appellant. On this crucial aspect, therefore, it has to be found that the

:: 65 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of

the complainant on this aspect cannot be relied on.”

152. The case of “Gurucharan Singh, Vs. State of Haryana”, [1994 CRI.L.J. 1710

(Punjab & Haryana High Court)], is also relied on for the accused. In this cited

decision, in Para 14, it was observed as under:

“To prove the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by an

accused person, the evidence of the complainant or trap witnesses cannot

be safely acted upon in the absence of some independent corroborative

evidence. In such a situation, bribe giver is normally treated as no better

than an accomplice and so his evidence needs corroboration from an

independent source. The same value is to be attached to the evidence of the

shadow witness specially when he is not proved to be an independent

witness. Independent corroboration to the evidence of such witnesses is

generally required by the Court, if not as a rule of law, then at least as a rule

of caution and prudence.”

153. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, who had set the law in motion by presenting

Ex.P.1 to the Police. It cannot be a factor by itself, to reject his evidence. If it is

proved to be otherwise trustworthy and believable, it cannot be discarded lightly. In

the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be stated, that the evidence of

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, is not corroborated by any other material or circumstances.

154. Circumstances are made out by the prosecution on account of recovery of

bribe amount from A.2, which he had received on behalf of A.1, in quick succession,

soon after it’s receipt, and it is the marked and tainted currency, which had passed-

on from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju to A.2, on the same day, a few hours prior to it’s

recovery by PW.13-then Dy.S.P. In such circumstances, when corroboration is

afforded and supporting consistent version of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju in this case,

particularly, having regard to effect of Sec.20 of P.C. Act, favouring presumption of

acceptance of such gratification for a reward and with a motive, these contentions,

advanced on behalf of the accused on account of interestedness of PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, have to be discarded.

:: 66 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

155. It is contended for the accused, that each and every aspect pertaining to pre-

trap proceedings and trap proceedings, are not proved by appropriate evidence, nor

there is evidence, adduced by the prosecution, which is corroborated by other

material or independent evidence. Inconsistencies and discrepancies, pointed out

by the accused, according to their contention, clearly make the entire version of the

prosecution, a suspect. Relying on the case of “Prem Singh Yadav, Vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation” [2011 (3) Crimes 426 (Del.) (Short Notes)], such

contention is advanced.

156. None of the so-called inconsistencies or uncertain versions, pointed out for

the accused, has any significant bearing to affect the acceptable nature of the

prosecution. It did not affect the core of the prosecution case in respect of demand,

receipt and acceptance of gratification for a specific favour, to be extended to PW.1-

Sri Y. Nagaraju by A.1, and the assistance, offered by A.2 to A.1, in this respect.

157. Thus, on a careful analysis and consideration of the entire material on record,

it has to be held that, the prosecution has successfully established that there was a

demand for a gratification of Rs.5,000/- by A.1 on PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, to pass

favourable orders in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000, when he was

discharging his functions as a public servant, namely, as learned Judicial Magistrate

of I Class, Palamaner, on 09.6.2003, on 15.7.2003 and again, on 19.7.2003. It is

also proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, that A.2 had received

MO.7-Rs.5,000/- being the gratification for such purpose on behalf of A.1, and

pursuant to such demand. Thus, A.2 had abetted committing of such offence by A.1

on account of his participation in such criminal act, knowingly, consciously making

out his tacit as well as patent approval and in following the directions of A.1 in this

respect. Affinity of A.1 and A.2, while both of them were working at Palamaner, in

the circumstances, cannot be ruled out, which apparently had made A.1 to take A.2

as a conduit, to receive such gratification. Thus, the prosecution has successfully

:: 67 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

established this point and against the accused. Thus, this point is held in favour of

the prosecution and against the accused.

POINT No.3: -

“Whether the investigation in this case is appropriate and fair?”

158. Serious contentions are advanced on behalf of the accused, pointing out that

there are lapses in investigation and PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, has shown

unnecessary and unwanted anxiety and enthusiasm in this case.

159. The manner, in which attempts were made by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB,

Tirupati, to procure presence of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, and PW.3-Sri G.

Prabhakar Rao, issuing requisitions on 18.7.2003 before receipt of Ex.P.1, as

alleged, commencement of pre-trap proceedings and the manner, in which Ex.P.11

was prepared, apart from Ex.P.3, are pointed out for the accused, in this respect.

Reasons have already been assigned supra, holding that such lapses are minor and

they are not going to the root of the prosecution case, affecting it’s veracity or

credibility.

160. However, in respect of Ex.P.6-rough sketch, contentions are advanced for the

accused, stating that it is a clear manipulation by PW.13-then Dy.S.P. PW.3-Sri G.

Prabhakar Rao, in cross-examination stated that he prepared Ex.P.6-rough sketch,

and the handwriting, found in it, is his handwriting. But, he stated, that one of the

Inspectors, in fact had prepared the rough sketch of the place of trap, and since it

was not neat, as directed either by Dy.S.P., or Inspectors, he prepared a rough

sketch again, as in Ex.P.6. He also stated that he did not prepare rough sketch on

his own at the place of trap, and that Ex.P.6 is only a neat and fair copy of rough

sketch, without any addition or deletion, from the rough sketch, prepared by the

Inspector.

:: 68 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

161. Ex.P.11-mediator report recorded that this rough sketch was prepared by Sri

Srinivasa Reddy, Inspector, showing vantage positions of members of trap party.

But, Ex.P.6 now available on record, did not reflect such vantage positions. PW.1-Sri

Y. Nagaraju stated in cross-examination, that Ex.P.6-rough sketch is correct, except

in respect of location of place of receipt of tainted currency, by A.2.

162. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., was specifically cross-examined on behalf of the accused

in this respect. He stated that only one rough sketch was prepared as mentioned in

Ex.P.11. He denied that Ex.P.6 was not prepared by Sri J. Srinivasa Reddy,

Inspector, ACB. He also denied that the original rough sketch was suppressed that

was prepared by Sri J. Srinivasa Reddy, since it was against the case of prosecution,

and hence, he got prepared Ex.P.6 through PW.3-Sri G. Prabhakar Rao.

163. As seen from Ex.P.6, vantage positions taken by members of trap party are

not specifically disclosed, nor location of Green Park Hotel, nor distances between

different places, namely, Green Park Hotel and main gate of the compound of the

Court, or the distance between the compound wall of the court and the building

proper, or the distance between the chambers of A.1 and room of PW.4-Sri S.

Hasheem. According to PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, the vantage positions

could not be shown in Ex.P.6, since the members of trap party, went on changing

their positions time to time. But, it is against the contents of Ex.P.11, which clearly

stated that vantage positions taken by every member of trap party was shown in

the rough sketch.

164. Thus, in respect of preparation of rough sketch, as such under Ex.P.6, there

are two different versions. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, went to the extent of

denying the contents of Ex.P.11 in this respect, giving his own explanations, which

are apparently false, in respect of preparation of Ex.P.6. It is clear that Ex.P.6 was

not prepared by Sri J. Srinivasa Reddy, Inspector, and the evidence of PW.3-Sri G.

Prabhakar Rao has to be accepted in this respect, that he made a neat and fair copy

:: 69 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

of the rough sketch already prepared, which though is not a replica, prepared during

Ex.P.11-proceedings. Thus, it is a serious lapse, committed by PW.13-then Dy.S.P.,

ACB, Tirupati, and apparently, negligence was exhibited in preparation of rough

sketch. Yet, the accused cannot take advantage of this fact in their defence, since

the witnesses of the prosecution were cross-examined on behalf of the accused, in

respect of topographical features of the place of trap. Hence, it cannot be stated,

that on account of this lapse, the accused stood to any prejudice in their defence.

165. A.1 further contended, that there is clear proof that the statement of PW.2-Sri

R. Lakshmi Narayana under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., was not recorded on the date of trap

and the statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.2-Sri R.

Lakshmi Narayana, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu, produced

in this Court were not the original statements, recorded by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB,

Tirupati. Thus, A.1 tried to contend that there was substitution of the statements of

the witnesses, recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

166. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, stated in cross-examination, that he had

sent a preliminary report to D.G., ACB, Hyderabad in this case, along with

statements of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M.

Ramachandrudu, upon examination, under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Again, he stated, that

the statement of PW.2-Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana was also sent along with his

preliminary report, to D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, apart from the above witnesses. In the

course of trial, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., was confronted by A.1, a set of statements, said

to have been recorded by him from the same witnesses, under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., that

were submitted to D.G., ACB, along with preliminary report. But, PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., ACB, denied that these are the copies of the statements, that were

submitted to D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, along with his preliminary report.

167. In the course of trial, at the request of A.1, the preliminary report of D.G.,

ACB, Hyderabad, submitted to Hon’ble High Court of A.P., was sent for. It was

:: 70 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

received from the Registrar (Vigilance), Hon’ble High Court of A.P., by this Court, on

14.9.2011 along with a letter. The entire set of record is marked Ex.D.6 in this case.

The preliminary report of then D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, dated 22.7.2003, is now

available on record, as a part of Ex.D.6. The enclosures to it, are stated to be the

copies of statements of PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M.

Ramachandrudu. Photocopies of these alleged statements, are also a part of

Ex.D.6. But, these alleged statements are unattested. Learned Registrar

(Vigilance), Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in the letter, dated 08.9.2011, informed this

Court that statements, recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., are not available with

Hon’ble High Court, though the original preliminary report, dated 22.7.2003 of D.G.,

ACB, Hyderabad, is available. It is further stated, that there is a reference in the

final report, dated 21.01.2004, of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, that the statements of

witnesses were recorded in detail in Part-II Case Diary, and as such, they are not

available with the Hon’ble High Court. Further, it is stated in this letter, that a copy

of unsigned Case diary Part-II record containing the statements of PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju, PW.4-Sri S. Hasheem and PW.5-Sri M. Ramachandrudu, is available with

Hon’ble High Court.

168. DW.5-Sri M. Mohan Reddy is examined by A.1 to prove Ex.D.6 in this case.

DW.5-Sri M. Mohan Reddy is working as an Assistant, attached to the Office of

Registrar (Vigilance), Hon’ble High Court of A.P. He deposed in respect of Ex.D.6

and it’s contents.

169. To prove the fact that thee was substitution of statements of witnesses,

recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., A.1 should have taken steps to confront such

versions in the statements to PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati. Mere production of

statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., in the course of trial, as a part of Ex.D.6, is not

sufficient by itself. Form of these statements found in Ex.D.6 is differing with the

one, now available on record in this case, which are produced by the prosecution. It

is not the form that matters. But, the substance of these statements is really

:: 71 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

required to be considered. There is no material on record, as to how these

statements found as a part of Ex.D.6, which are unattested, which were available in

the record of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., is differing in their contents, when

compared with the one, available on record in this case, which are produced by the

prosecution. Therefore, A.1 cannot draw any support on account of this situation,

for his contention.

170. PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, stated in cross-examination by A.1, that

the remand report did not mention that witnesses were examined under Sec.161

Cr.P.C., and their statements were recorded by that date. A.2 was produced under

arrest in this Court, and was remanded to judicial custody. The remand report did

not have any statements of the witnesses, as it’s enclosures, which is also admitted

by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, in his cross-examination. On account of such

omission, it cannot be contended that no statements of these witnesses were

recorded upon their examination under Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

171. PW.6-Sri N. Narayan Reddy, PW.7-Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.8-Sri K. Bala

Krishna, and PW.9-Sri S. Pitchandi stated at the trial, that they were examined by

Dy.S.P., on phone. Therefore, it is contended for the accused, that PW.13-then

Dy.S.P., committed a serious lapse in not physically examining these witnesses, and

it is another circumstance, to point out the investigation has been most perfunctory.

172. On a careful consideration of the entire material on record, it cannot be

stated, that PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, proceeded on with the investigation

in a satisfactory manner. There are lapses, committed by him in investigation.

Nonetheless, when the core of prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt

in this case, it cannot be stated, that on account of such minor lapses in

investigation, both the accused stood to any prejudice, or suffered on account of it.

Therefore, the contention of the accused has to be rejected.

:: 72 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

POINT No.4: -

“Whether sanction to prosecute A.1 and A.2 under Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19 are

proved to be legal, proper and in order?”

173. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.11-Sri K. Rama Krishna, who

was then working as Assistant Section Officer, Home Courts-C Department,

Government of A.P., AP Secretariat, Hyderabad and Ex.P.17 to prove that valid and

legal sanction was accorded to prosecute A.1 in this case. A.1 was working as

learned Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Palamaner on the date of

trap. Therefore, in terms of Sec.19 of P.C. Act, sanction was required to take

cognizance of this case against him, upon prosecution.

174. PW.11-Sri K. Rama Krishna deposed that their Department received

preliminary report, copies of final report, mediator reports, gist of statements of

witnesses from the Office of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, to accord sanction to prosecute

A.1. According to him, this file was circulated up to the Chief Minister and the

Governor of A.P., through Assistant Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Secretary (LA & J),

Chief Secretary and that the file was returned to the Secretary (LA & J), after

approval. Thereupon, after going through the material and on application of mind,

the then Secretary Sri G.V. Seethapathy (as His Lordship then was), issued sanction

order under Ex.P.17. PW.11-Sri K. Rama Krishna identified the signature of Sri G.V.

Seethapathy (as His Lordship then was), on Ex.P.17, on account of his acquaintance

with it, and since he had come across a number of files, containing such signatures.

175. In cross-examination by A.1, this witness stated that a specimen sanction

order was forwarded by Office of D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, to their office along with the

final report. He further stated, that he was not working in the same Section by the

time of Ex.P.17, and that he was not associated with Sri G.V. Seethapathy (as His

Lordship then was) in office. Basing on such statements, it is contended that, there

is no proper proof offered by the prosecution, of Ex.P.17.

:: 73 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

176. On consideration of the contents of Ex.P.17, it is manifest that the material

considered for issuance of such order, was appropriate, and it was to the

satisfaction of the sanctioning authority. Thereupon, on application of mind and on

going through the material, Ex.P.17 was issued by Sri G.V. Seethapathy (as His

Lordship then was), then Secretary, (LA & J), Government of A.P. Therefore, the

contention of A.1 in this respect, cannot be accepted.

177. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW.12-Sri G. Devendra Rao,

Section Officer, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, and Ex.P.19, to

prove the sanction order, issued against A.2 to prosecute him in this case. He was

working as a Police Constable, attached to Palamaner Police Station as on

19.7.2003. Therefore, the sanction of the Government was necessary, in terms of

Sec.19 of P.C. Act, to prosecute him, in this case.

178. The evidence of PW.12-Sri Devendra Rao is that, their Department received a

fax message, preliminary report, final report along with copies of FIR, mediator

reports 1 and 2, and gist of statements of witnesses, requesting to issue sanction

orders to prosecute A.2. According to PW.12-Sri Devendra Rao, this file was

processed and examined by their Department and it was put to circulation up to the

Chief Minister. It was also forwarded to Law Department. On consideration of such

material and on application of mind, as to material on record, according to PW.12-Sri

Devendra Rao, the then Secretary to Government Sri A.K. Srivathsava, issued

orders, sanctioning prosecution of A.2 in this case. This witness identified the

signature of Sri A.K. Srivathsava on Ex.P.19-sanction order on account of his

acquaintance with it, since he had come across the signatures of Sri A.K.

Srivathsava, in several files, in regular course of discharge of his duties in his

Department.

179. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he was not working in the same

Department, when Ex.P.19 was issued. He further stated, that he was not

:: 74 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

associated with Sri A.K. Srivathsava at any time. He further stated, that a draft

sanction order was sent along with final report by ACB, to their Department. He also

stated, that there is no specific reference as to documents considered in Ex.P.19.

180. Nonetheless, on a careful consideration of the contents of Ex.P.19, it is

making out that the relevant material was taken into consideration by the

sanctioning authority before issuing such an order. Statements of PW.12-Sri

Devendra Rao, elicited in cross-examination, did not have any bearing, nor can it be

stated that Ex.P.19 is a replica of the draft sanction order, issued by their Office.

Contents of Ex.P.19 itself are making out that there was consideration of the

material, laid before the sanctioning authority, and on application of mind, it was so

issued.

181. On behalf of the prosecution,it is contended that the evidence, so let-in, is

clearly proving that in respect of both the accused, the sanctioning authority, on

application of mind and on consideration of the material, accorded sanction.

182. But, it is contended for the accused, that the sanction, so accorded to

prosecute both the accused, did not reflect that it was issued on application of mind

and upon consideration of the material. Reliance is placed for the accused in this

respect, in the case of “Md. Tafazul Rahman, v. State of Orissa,” [1985 CRI.L.J.

1971 (Orissa High Court)]. In Para 9 of the cited decision, it was observed:

“Ext.16 shows that it was a draft sanction order. It is not known what

happened to the final sanction order. It was not produced nor proved in the

trial court. The details of material documents which might have been

produced before P.W.10, the Superintending Engineer and sanctioning

authority which he might have taken into consideration have not been stated

in the sanction order (Ext. 16). It does not appear from it that the statement

of P.W. 12 who was the most material witness was placed before him and he

had perused the same before according sanction. The evidence of P.W. 10,

the Superintending Engineer quoted above clearly discloses non-application

of mind. When he gave evidence he did not remember as to on the basis

:: 75 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

and on consideration of which material documents he gave sanction for

prosecution. On the other hand, it discloses that he was asked to sign the

draft sanction order (Ext. 16) and he did so. It was expected of P.W.14, the

Inspector of Vigilance who submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and

obtained the sanction order from P.W. 10 to have stated the material

documents which were placed before P.W. 10 for obtaining the sanction

order. Unfortunately, except a general statement that all materials were

placed before the Superintending Engineer he did not state the details

thereof. Such evidence will give rise to the only conclusion which I have

drawn and that is, non-application of mind of the sanctioning authority

before according sanction for prosecution of the case.”

183. “C.B.I./SPE Hyderabad, Vs. P. Muthuraman”, [1996 CRI. L.J. 3638 (A.P.

High Court)] is also relied on for the accused. In Paras 14 and 16, it was observed

as under:

“14. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, I reach the

conclusion that the signature, on the sanction should be roved either by the

sanctioning authority or by his subordinate officer or, clerk who has seen the

sanctioning authority signing the sanction order or who is acquainted with

the signature of the sanctioning authority. Merely filing the order purported

to be the sanction order alleged to have been signed by the competent

authority, does not discharge the burden of the prosecution in proving the

sanction according to law.”

“16. If the sanction order is a speaking order, then the matter ends there;

otherwise, evidence should be adduced to prove that the sanctioning

authority had perused the material before according sanction which may not

be in a particular form.”

184. “V. Venkata Subbarao, vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P.”

[2007 CRI.L.J. 754 (SC)] is also relied on for the accused, wherein, their Lordships

of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para 23, on facts, observed as under:

“It is also accepted that before the Sanctioning Authority, the vital documents

showing involvement of the M.R.O. Had not been produced. The Sanctioning

Authority therefore, did not have any occasion to apply their mind to the

entire materials on record and in that view of the matter, the sanction is,

:: 76 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

therefore, vitiated in law. Conduct of the officers of the respondent who had

taken recourse to suppressio veri deserves serious condemnation.”

185. “State of Karnataka, Vs. Ameer Jan”, [2008 CRI. L. J. 347 (SC)] is another

authority, relied on for the accused in this context. Their Lordships of Hon’ble

Supreme Court, in Para 8 of this authority, observed as follows: -

“... We have noticed therein before that the sanctioning authority had

purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made

by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha. Even the said

report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report,

either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents,

IG Police Karnataka Lokayuktha had placed on record the materials collected

on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of

evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant

concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the

entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should

be placed before the sanctioning authority. Int he event, the order of

sanction does not indicate application of mind as to the materials placed

before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same

may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact

been produced.”

186. A careful consideration of all these authorities cited for the accused, make

out that since there was deficiency in according sanction to prosecute the accused,

the observations were so made. In fact, in the case of “C.B.I./SPE Hyderabad, Vs. P.

Muthuraman”, [1996 CRI. L.J. 3638 (A.P. High Court)] referred to supra, in Para

16, it was observed that, once the sanction order is a speaking order, then the

matter ends there, and otherwise evidence should be adduced to prove that the

sanctioning authority had perused the material before according sanction. A

consideration of evidence of PW.11-Sri K. Rama Krishna and PW.12-Sri G. Devendra

Rao apart from Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19, is making out that the authorities, who issued

sanction orders, clearly considered the material on record. Both these sanction

orders are speaking orders, which have clearly referred to the material laid.

:: 77 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

187. In the case of “State, v. K. Narasimhachary”, [2006 CRI.L.J. 518 (SC)], their

Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that authenticity of sanction order,

cannot be questioned, since it being a public document, under Sec.74 of Evidence

Act, observing in Para 11, as under:

“A bare perusal of the order of sanction shows that the allegation as against

the Respondent herein for taking into consideration that the Government of

Andhra Pradesh, who was the competent authority to remove the said Sri K.

Narasimha Chari, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Cuddapah, from the

Government Service, after fully and carefully examining the material placed

before them in respect of the said allegations and having regard to the

circumstances of the case considered that the Respondent should be

prosecuted in the court of law; whereupon the order of sanction was issued in

the name of the Governor, Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy, Secretary to the

Government, merely authenticated the said order of sanction which was

issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The order of sanction

was, thus, issued by the State in discharge of its statutory functions in terms

of Section 19 of the Act. The order of sanction was authenticated. The said

order of sanction was an executive action of a State having been issued in

the name of the Governor. It was authenticated in the manner specified in

the Rules of Executive Business. The authenticity of the said order has not

been questioned. It was, therefore, a public document within the meaning of

Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-6 proved the signature of Shri N.

Madanmohan Reddy. He identified his signature. He was not cross-examined

on the premise that he did not know the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan

Reddy. In answer to the only question put to him, he stated “By the time the

Secretary signed in Ex.P.17 I was in G.A.D.”

188. Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19 have been authenticated by the Secretaries to

Government, and thus, they stand in the position of public documents. Therefore,

issuance of such orders, cannot be questioned by the accused, nor is there any

material to hold that they are improper. The prosecution has adduced evidence to

prove these two documents, and thus, Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.19 are proved to be legal

and proper. Thus, it has to be held that, proper sanction has been issued to

prosecute both the accused in this case, and the same has been proved by the

:: 78 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

prosecution. Thus, this point is held in favour of prosecution and against the

accused.

POINT No.5: -

“Whether a charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act and a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w

13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act against A.1 is made out?”

189. In view of the findings recorded on all the above points, it has to be held that,

on account of pending official favour, namely, to pass an order, discharging A.3 and

A.4, who are the petitioners in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000, A.1,

through A.2, had received and accepted a gratification of Rs.5000/-, as a reward,

which is other than legal remuneration. Further, on account of receipt of such

amount of Rs.5,000/-, he made a pecuniary advantage by corrupt means, for himself

abusing his position, in the course of discharge of his functions as a public servant,

namely, learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. Therefore, both the

charges under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, and infraction of Sec.13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, attracting

penalty under Sec.13 (2) of P.C. Act, are proved by the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubt against A.1. Thus, this point is held in favour of the prosecution

and against A.1.

POINT No.6: -

“Whether a charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, and

under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act are established against A.2 beyond

reasonable doubt?”

190. A.2, being a Police Constable, then working in Palamaner Police Station, was

attending to Court duty, undisputedly. PW.10-Sri M. Audi Narayana was then Sub-

Inspector of Police, Palamaner Police Station, when A.1 was learned Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. The evidence of PW.10-Sri M. Audi Narayana is

that, A.2 was transferred to Byreddipalli Police Station on 10.6.2003 from Palamaner

Police Station by the orders of then Superintendent of Police, Chittoor. But,

according to PW.10-Sri M. Audi Narayana, he was not relieved at request of A.1.

:: 79 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

191. In cross-examination, PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana stated that he was asked by

A.1, not to relieve A.2, in his chambers in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge/Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, when PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana attended the Court

as a witness in a criminal case. But, he could not give the date, when A.1 asked him

likewise. He denied the suggestion that A.1 did not request him in this respect in his

chambers, nor he was called into the chambers of A.1 for this purpose. PW.10-Sri

Audi Narayana further stated that he did not send any information to the

Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, that A.2 was not relieved on account of request

by A.1. According to PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana, A.2 was trapped one month nine

days after receiving transfer orders from Palamaner Police Station. According to

PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana, he was not under obligation to accede to the request of

A.1, and yet, he accepted the request of A.1, since he apprehended that there would

be some problem and difficulty in getting cases numbered or attending to any

matter relating to their Police Station. Byreddipalle Police Station is also within the

territorial jurisdiction of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palamaner, and it is at a distance of 15 K.Ms., from Palamaner, according to him.

192. Such version from PW.10-Sri Audi Narayana is brought out by the prosecution

to prove the affinity between A.1 and A.2. In the departmental enquiry against A.1,

this witness was examined and as per Ex.D.4, which is a part of his statement in the

departmental enquiry, this witness did not state such reason that A.2 was not

relieved on account of request of A.1. But, he stated in that departmental enquiry,

that he did not relieve A.2, for want of suitable Constable for court duty, and was

searching for a suitable constable. This witness further stated, that he did not issue

any order to A.2 for retaining him in Palamaner Police Station, stating that his

services were requested by A.1.

193. The version of this witness in this trial is differing with his version, in the

departmental enquiry conducted against A.1. But, both of them were making out,

:: 80 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

that A.2 was the suitable constable, attending on court duty in the court of learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, when A.1 was the learned Presiding Officer.

It is giving an indication, that A.2 was in a position to get or manage the things well

in his court duty, when working at Palamaner.

194. Therefore, the evidence of PW.10-Sri M. Audi Narayana, as such, cannot be

rejected, and it is proving the fact that A.2 was retained in Palamaner Police Station,

even though he was transferred to Byreddipalli Police Station, about more than a

month prior to the trap, and that A.2 was continuing to attend the Court of learned

Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Palamaner till then.

195. On behalf of A.2, legality of his prosecution is questioned, contending that

there is no material to file a charge sheet against him or to prosecute, from the

stage of registering FIR or in respect of official favour pending with him, towards

PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju or the demands for bribe, which are sine-qua-non to make out

charges under Sec.7 of P.C. Act and under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act.

196. Reasons are assigned supra in respect of proof of both the charges against

A.2, accepting the case of the prosecution. In Ex.P.20, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB,

Tirupati was not directed to register a case against A.2 and to lay trap against him.

It is admitted by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, in cross-examination for A.2. He

further admitted that there is no allegation that A.2 demanding PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju

bribe on behalf of A.1. But, there is reference in Ex.P.1, that A.1 directed PW.1-Sri Y.

Nagaraju to handover the bribe amount to A.2, when they had met in Punjabi Dhaba

at Palamaner on 15.7.2003. Apparently, on such basis, PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB,

Tirupati, had registered Ex.P.22-FIR against A.1 and A.2 and proceeded on, with

investigation. Recovery of MO.7-currency from A.2, in Ex.P.11 proceedings, relating

to trap in this case, did reveal his complicity in this crime. Therefore, such

contention for A.2 is rejected, accepting the contention of the prosecution.

:: 81 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

197. The material on record is making out that A.2 assisted and aided A.1 in the

alleged incident of receiving the gratification from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju, and on

behalf of A.1, as per his directions. Section 7 of P.C. Act, as well as Sec.13 (1)(d) of

P.C. Act, are attracted against A.2, since receipt of such amount by him on behalf of

A.1, is also within the scope and ambit of both these sections. Section 12 of P.C.

Act, is an independent provision, relating to abetment in respect of offence under

Sec.7, applicable to this case. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is proving

positive abetment on the part of A.2, in this affair, of A.1, and thus, he had received

MO.7-tainted and marked currency from PW.1-Sri Y. Nagaraju on 19.7.2003, which

was recovered from him and at h is instance, by PW.13-then Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati.

Therefore, the charge of abetment attracting an offence under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, is

also established against A.2. Therefore, it has to be held that, Charges under Sec.7

of P.C. Act, infraction of Sec.13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, punishable under Sec.13 (2) of P.C.

Act, 1988, and a charge under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, 1988, stand proved against A.2,

by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt.

198. In view of the reasons stated above, it has to be held that, the charges under

Sec.7 of P.C. Act, and Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, are proved against A.1,

and hence, he is found guilty. Similarly, charges under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, under

Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, and under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, 1988, are proved

against A.2, and he is found guilty.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03rd day of January 2012.

SPL. JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES,NELLORE.

:: 82 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

199. Both the accused are heard separately in respect of sentence, to be imposed.

A.1 stated that it is a false case, foisted against him and unnecessarily he has been

implicated. He further stated that his parents are quite old, that he has been the

eldest son in the family to look after his parents and that he has two tendered

children, whose welfare he has to look after. He further stated, that his daughter is

studying B.Tech., and his son is studying 10th Standard. Thus, he pleaded mercy.

200. A.2 stated that his wife committed suicide, unable to bear foisting of this case

and on account of humiliation she suffered. He further stated, that he has three

daughters, and he performed marriage of one of them. He also stated, that his two

other daughters are yet to be married, whose welfare he has to take care of. Thus

stating, he requested mercy.

201. On consideration of the same and considering the nature of charges proved

against both the accused, having regard to the positions, they held, one being a

Judicial Officer, another, being a Police Constable, it is not desirable to extend any

mercy. Inasmuch as Judicial Officer is not expected to resort to such activity as

complained of, and proved in this case and if any lenience is shown, the message

flows down may encourage similar activity in the generations to come, affecting the

institution, very dearly and ultimately the Society will be the sufferer at large.

202. In this context, the observations of their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of “State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs. V. Vasudeva Rao” [2004 CRI. L.J. 620

(SC)] have to be borne in mind, particularly, in Para 30 of this authority, it reads as

under: -

“When corruption was sought to be eliminated from the polity all possible

stringent measures are to be adopted within the bounds of law. One such

measure is to provide condign punishment. Parliament measured the

parameters for such condign punishment and in that process wanted to fix a

minimum sentence of imprisonment for giving deterrent impart on other

public servants who are prone to corrupt deals. That was precisely the

:: 83 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

reason why the sentence was fixed as 7 years and directed that even if the

said period of imprisonment need not be given the sentence shall not be less

than the imprisonment for one year. Such a legislative insistence is

reflection of Parliament’s resolve to meet corruption cases with a very strong

hand and to give signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of

sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public servants were warned

through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face

very serious consequences. If on the other hand any public servant is given

the impression that if he succeeds in protracting the proceedings that would

help him to have the advantage of getting a very light sentence even if the

case ends in conviction, we are afraid its fallout would afford incentive to

public servants who are succeptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious

practices with immunity. Increasing the fine after reducing the imprisonment

to a nominal period can also defeat the purpose as the corrupt public servant

could easily raise the fine amount through the same means.”

203. Therefore, if A.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in

default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months in respect of charge

under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, and if he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees

five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months

in respect of charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, it meets the ends of

justice. Similarly, if A.2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in

default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months in respect of charge

under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, and if he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees

five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months

in respect of charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, and if further

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months as well

as a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default simple imprisonment for

15 (fifteen) days in respect of charge under Sec.12 of P.C. Act, proved against him,

:: 84 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

it meets the ends of justice. Reasons have already been recorded that no finding is

necessary in respect of charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, read with

Sec.34 I.P.C., and therefore, no sentence, as such, is recorded thereon.

204. IN THE RESULT, A.1 is found, guilty of a charge under Sec.7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)

in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, and is further

found guilty of a charge under Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to

pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment

for a period of 3 (three) months, under Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. Both the substantive

sentences shall run concurrently.

205. A.2 is found guilty of a Charge under Sec.7 of P.C. Act, convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to

pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment

for a period of 3 (three) months, that he is further found guilty of a charge under

Sec.13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees

five thousand only) in default, simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months,

and that he is further found guilty of a charge under Section 12 of P.C. Act,

convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six)

months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default, simple

imprisonment for a period of 15 (fifteen) days, under Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. All the

substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

206. Both the accused are entitled for set off for remand period, if any, to the

extent applicable, under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. MO.7-cash of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five

thousand only) is directed to be confiscated to State on expiry of appeal time. MO.1

:: 85 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

to MO.6 and MO.8 are useless items, and they are directed to be destroyed on

expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 03rd day of January 2012.

SPL. JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES,NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCEWitnesses Examined

for Prosecution: -

PW.1 : Sri Y. Naga Raju, son of Sri Gangadharam, Practicing advocate at Palamaner Bar, r/o Gantavuru village, Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District (defacto complainant);

PW.2 : Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana, then Senior Assistant, Girijan Cooperative Corporation, Tirupati, Chittoor District (mediator);

PW.3 : Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, then Asst. Executive Engineer, R&B, Tirupati (mediator);

PW.4 : Sri S. Hasheem, then Head Clerk, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District;

PW.5 : Sri M. Ramachandrudu, then Typist-cum-Accountant, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District;

PW.6 : Sri N. Narayan Reddy, then Steno-Typist, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District;

PW.7 : Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, then Criminal Bench Clerk, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District;

PW.8 : Sri K. Bala Krishna, then Attender, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District;

PW.9 : Sri S. Pitchandi, then Process Server-cum-Attender, O/o JMFC, Palamaner, Chittoor District;

PW.10 : Sri Mopuri Audi Narayana, then Sub-Inspector of Police, Palamaner Police Station, Chittoor District;

PW.11 : Sri K. Rama Krishna, Asst. Section Officer, Home Courts-C Department, Government of A.P., A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad;

PW.12 : Sri G. Devendra Rao, Section Officer, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad;

PW.13 : Sri S. Seshagiri Rao, then Dy.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati Range, Tirupati; and

PW.14 : Sri K. Karunakar, then Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Tirupati.

:: 86 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

for Defence: -

DW.1 : Sri B. Mohan Reddy, President, Bar Association, Palamaner;

DW.2 : Sri T. Sadasiva Reddy, Head Constable, Palamaner Police Station;

DW.3 : Sri A.G. Vadivelu, Head Constable, I Town Police Station, Chittoor;

DW.4 : Smt. J. Seethalakshmi, Member in Lok Adalat at Palamaner; and

DW.5 : Sri M. Mohan Reddy, Assistant, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

DOCUMENTS MARKEDfor Prosecution: -

Ex.P.1/17.7.2003 : Report of PW.1 given to Joint Director (Rayalaseema), ACB, Hyderabad, at Hyderabad;

Ex.P.2/19.07.2003 : Carbon copy of FIR in Crime No.11/RCT-TCT/2003;

Ex.P.3/19.07.2003 : Mediators Report No.I, prepared during post trap proceedings;

Ex.P.4/19.07.2003 : Mediators Report No.III, prepared at the house of A.2;

Ex.P.5/19.07.2003 : Search list for the house search of A.2;

Ex.P.5(A)/ -- : Relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2;

Ex.P.6/19.07.2003 : Rough sketch of the scene of trap;

Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.10/ -- : Signatures of PW.2 in Mediator Report No.II;

Ex.P.11/19.07.2003 : Mediators Report No.II, prepared during trap proceedings;

Ex.P.12/ -- : Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4;

Ex.P.13/ -- : Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4;

Ex.P.14/ -- : Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5;

Ex.P.15/ -- : Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9;

Ex.P.16/20.07.2011 : Authorization given to PW.11 for giving evidence in this case;

Ex.P.17/04.11.2004 : Sanction order, issued to prosecute A.1;

Ex.P.18/19.07.2011 : Authorization given to PW.12 for giving evidence in this case;

Ex.P.19/04.01.2006 : Sanction order, issued to prosecute A.2;

Ex.P.20/17.07.2003 : Memo issued to PW.13, by D.G., ACB, Hyderabad;

Ex.P.21/17.07.2003 : Letter of the then Registrar (Vigilance), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, addressed to D.G., ACB, Hyderabad;

:: 87 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

Ex.P.22/19.07.2003 : Original FIR in Crime No.11/RCT-TCT/2003;

Ex.P.23/30.01.2006 : Memo of Joint Director (R), ACB, Hyderabad;

Ex.P.24/01.5.1998 : Original FIR in Crime No.144/97-98 of Excise Station, Palamaner;

Ex.P.25/30.04.1998 : Original Panchanama concerned to the crime, reported in Ex.P.24;

Ex.P.26/ -- : Original Docket sheets, maintained in C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner;

Ex.P.27/ -- : Original Petition in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.c. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner;

Ex.P.28/15.4.2003 : Original Memo of Objections filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Palamaner, in Crl.M.P. No.894/2003 in C.C. No.460/2000 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner;

for Defence: -

Ex.D.1/03.06.2011 : Certified copy of Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No.118/2010;

Ex.D.2/19.07.2003 : Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1;

Ex.D.3/19.07.2003 : Relevant portion marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2;

Ex.D.4/05.02.2005 : Relevant portion marked in the deposition of PW.10 in the matter of Enquiry in Order in ROC. No.1125/2003/Vigilance, dt.03.09.2004 of Hon'ble the High Court of A.P., against A.1;

Ex.D.5/ -- : Photocopy of Rowdy Sheet No.10, relating to PW.1; and

Ex.D.6/08.09.2011 : Letter of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad along with it’s enclosures, namely, the letter of Sri A.K. Mohanthy, D.G., ACB, Hyderabad, in Rc. No.159/RCT-TCT/2003, dt.22.7.2003 and un-attested photocopies of C.D. Part-II relating to Crime No.11/RCT-TCT/2003;

Ex.C.1/ -- : Summons of Station House Officer, Palamaner Police Station.

Ex.X.1/20.08.2003 : File relating to PW.1-Sri Y. Naga Raju, Rowdy No.10.

:: 88 ::C.C. No.17/2006 Trap Case

Material Objects marked

MO.1 : Sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate powder;

MO.2 : Sealed cover containing sample of Phenolphthalein powder;

MO.3 : Sealed bottle containing right hand wash of A.2;

MO.4 : Sealed bottle containing left hand wash of A.2;

MO.5 : Sealed bottle containing wash of shirt pocket of A.2;

MO.6 : Khaki coloured Uniform shirt of A.2;

MO.7 : Cash of Rs.5,000/-;

MO.8 : Sealed cover, containing sample of Sodium Carbonate powder.

Spl. Judge

Copies to: -

1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad; 2. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, ACB Court, Nellore;3. Sri V. Sree Rama Sanjeeva Rao, Accused No.1; and4. Sri K.V. Suresh, advocate for A.2